jtibrarp  of  Che  Cheolocjiccd  ^etninarp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

John  Stuart  Conning,  D.D, 

DS  149  . J39  1919 
Jastrow,  Morris,  1861-1921. 
Zionism  and  the  future  of 
Palestine 


ZIONISM  AND  THE 
FUTURE  OF  PALESTINE 


OTHER  WORKS 

BY 

MORRIS  JASTROW,  Jr.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 


The  Civilization  of  Babylonia  and  As¬ 
syria 

Hebrew  and  Babylonian  Traditions 

The  Study  of  Religion 

The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 

Aspects  of  Religious  Belief  and  Practice 
in  Babylonia  and  Assyria 

Babylonian-Assyrian  Birth  Omens  and 
Their  Cultural  Significance 

The  War  and  the  Bagdad  Railway 

The  War  and  the  Coming  Peace 

A  Gentle  Cynic,  being  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes 


ZIONISM  AND  T 
FUTURE  OF  PALESTI 


The  Fallacies  and  Dangers  of  Political  Zionism 


BY 

MORRIS  JASTROW,  Jr.,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 


“The  past  is  for  inspiration ,  not  imitation , 
for  continuation,  not  repetition.  ” 

(Zangwill) 


iSeto  gorfe 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1919 


All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1919 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
Set  up  and  electrotyped.  Published,  May,  1919 


TO 

FELIX  ADLER 

A  MODERN  APOSTLE  OF  FREEDOM 
AND  LIGHT 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/zionismfutureofpOOjast 


CONTENTS 


Preface  . 

•  • 

PAGE 
•  • 

Vll 

I 

The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism 

•  • 

I 

II 

The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism 

•  • 

13 

1 — 1 

1 — 1 

1 — 1 

The  New  Era  and  Reformed  Judaism  . 

4i 

IV 

Jewish  Self-Consciousness  and  Anti- 
Semitism  . 

5o 

V 

Nationality  Versus  Nation 

•  •  • 

68 

VI 

The  Trend  of  Jewish  History 

•  • 

85 

VII 

Palestine  of  To-day  . 

•  •  • 

97 

VIII 

Political  Zionism  and  the 
Question . 

Jewish 

•  •  • 

11 7 

Appendix . 

151 

/ 


PREFACE 


Up  to  the  present  the  Zionists  have  done  most 
of  the  writing  and  all  of  the  shouting.  They  have 
succeeded  in  moving  the  political  aspects  of  Zionism 
so  far  into  the  foreground  as  to  overshadow  the 
older  religious  Zionism  which  forms  an  integral 
doctrine  of  orthodox  Judaism,  and  entirely  to  ob¬ 
scure  the  original  aspect  of  the  modern  movement 
which  started  out  as  a  purely  ameliorative  meas¬ 
ure  to  secure,  through  colonization  in  Palestine, 
“  self-emancipation  ”  1  for  Jews  living  under  dis¬ 
tressing  conditions  in  Russia.  Political  Zionism 
holds  the  center  of  the  stage.  The  Zionists  have 
also  succeeded  in  creating  the  impression  on  the 
outside  world  that  Political  Zionism  represents  a 
national  uprising  among  the  Jews  in  general,  a  re¬ 
crudescence  of  national  feelings  that  have  long  lain 
dormant.  The  claim  is  made  that  Zionism  is  part 
of  the  movement  for  the  reassertion  of  nationalities 
that  forms  such  a  striking  feature  of  the  political 
history  of  Europe  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and 

1  See  for  this  term,  p.  5. 

•  • 
vu 


Vlll 


Preface 

that  is  now  showing  itself  again  at  the  end  of  the 
war  in  the  rise  of  the  suppressed  nationalities  of 
Poland,  Bohemia,  Armenia  and  Arabia.  This  im¬ 
pression  is  entirely  erroneous  and  misleading.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  of  the  Jews  settled  in  Western 
European  countries  and  in  this  country  where  Jews 
enjoy  precisely  the  same  political  and  other  rights 
as  their  fellow-citizens,  only  a  very  small  percentage 
of  those  who  have  lived  long  enough  in  these  coun¬ 
tries  to  have  become  assimilated  to  the  political  and 
social  conditions,  approve  of  political  Zionism. 
The  larger  proportion  of  such  Jews  are  probably  en¬ 
tirely  indifferent  to  the  question. 

Not  content  with  this,  political  Zionists  now 
claim  that  the  issue  has  been  won,  that  opposition 
to  it  has  become  useless,  that  those  who  continue 
to  combat  it  are  blind  to  the  rapid  movement  of 
events  through  which,  as  one  of  the  leaders  puts  it, 
“  Zionism  has  been  transferred  from  the  field  of 
national  aspirations  to  the  realm  of  political  fact.” 
The  slogan  has  been  given  out  to  drown  all  opposi¬ 
tion  by  a  mighty  chorus  of  “  victory  ”  shouts.  And 
all  this  before  the  Peace  Conference  at  Paris  has 
made  any  declaration  on  the  subject! 

The  basis  of  this  assurance  appears  to  be  largely 
the  statement  made  by  the  Right  Honorable  Arthur 


Preface 


IX 


J.  Balfour,  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
under  date  of  November  2nd,  1917,  that  the  Brit¬ 
ish  government  “  view  with  favor  the  establish¬ 
ment  in  Palestine  of  a  national  home  for  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people,  and  will  use  their  best  endeavors  to  facil¬ 
itate  the  achievement  of  this  object.”  The  state¬ 
ment  means  much  or  little  according  as  one  gauges 
what  Mr.  Balfour  had  in  mind  in  making  it.  It 
will  be  noted  that  Mr.  Balfour  avoids  the  term 
“  Jewish  State,”  and  speaks  only  of  a  “  national 
homeland.”  To  a  “  homeland  ”  for  such  Jews  as 
have  gone  to  Palestine  or  who  propose  to  settle 
there,  there  is,  of  course,  no  objection;  and  I  em¬ 
phasize  throughout  this  volume  the  desirability  of 
encouraging  the  colonization  movement  in  every 
possible  way  as  much  for  the  sake  of  Palestine  as 
for  that  of  the  Jews,  since  the  country  can  only 
benefit  by  the  presence  of  a  thrifty  and  industrious 
population  devoted  to  the  improvement  of  the  land 
and  to  promoting  its  industrial  and  commercial  ac¬ 
tivity.  It  all  depends,  therefore,  on  what  is  meant 
by  “  national.”  Mr.  Balfour,  it  may  be  admitted, 
would  not  have  used  the  term  had  he  not  accepted 
;  the  main  contention  of  political  Zionists  that  the 
Jews  were  a  separate  nation  or  nationality.  Now 
Mr.  Balfour,  so  far  as  known,  has  made  no  special 


x  Preface 

study  of  either  Jewish  history  or  of  the  Jewish  re¬ 
ligion  or  of  the  psychology  of  the  Jewish  people. 
His  type  of  mind  is,  as  is  well  known,  essentially 
skeptical,  and  he  would  be  apt  to  view  such  a  ques¬ 
tion  as  Zionism  from  the  point  of  view  of  diplo¬ 
matic  policy.  At  all  events  he  would  probably  be 
the  last  one  to  claim  any  weight  attaching  to  his 
opinion  of  the  crucial  question,  whether  the  Jews 
are  a  nation  or  merely  a  religious  body  that  once 
was  a  nation.  The  ultimate  source,  therefore,  of 
the  introduction  of  the  term  “  national  ”  into  Mr. 
Balfour’s  declaration  is  the  platform  of  the  political 
Zionists.  If,  therefore,  it  can  be  shown,  as  I  pro¬ 
pose  to  do  in  this  volume,  that  this  term  cannot 
properly  be  applied  to  the  Jews,  the  declaration 
would  merely  have  the  force  attaching  to  any  state¬ 
ment  coming  from  so  distinguished  a  personage  as 
Mr.  Balfour.  Granting  the  full  weight  of  the  state¬ 
ment  as  it  stands,  it  does  not  follow  that  Mr.  Bal¬ 
four  favors  the  organization  of  the  Jews,  viewed 
as  a  national  unit,  into  a  political  unit  in  Palestine 
to  be  placed  in  control  of  that  country.  He  is  silent 
on  this  essential  point  —  naturally  so,  for  Mr.  Bal¬ 
four  is,  above  all,  a  statesman,  and  when  he  wrote 
this  declaration,  the  issue  of  the  war  was  still  un¬ 
certain,  and  even  he  was  not  in  a  position  to  decide 


Preface 


xi 


what  should  become  of  Palestine  upon  the  termina¬ 
tion  of  the  great  conflict.  He  could  not  at  the  time 
have  envisaged  more  than  the  recognition  of  the 
Jews  to  the  right  of  self-government  in  their  colo¬ 
nies.  We  are  now  in  a  position,  however,  to  appeal 
from  Mr.  Balfour  of  1917  to  Mr.  Balfour  of  1918, 
at  a  time  when  the  war  was  approaching  its  close. 
Judging  from  his  later  utterance,1  it  would  seem  that 
Mr.  Balfour  has  been  impressed  by  the  opposition 
which,  since  his  first  declaration,  Zionism  had  en¬ 
countered  in  many  circles.  The  emphasis  is  placed 
by  him  on  Palestine  as  a  home  for  “  homeless  ” 
Jews.  The  “  national  homeland  ”  is  not  stressed, 
and  it  would  appear  that  Mr.  Balfour  now  views 
1  Zionism  largely,  if  not  purely,  as  an  ameliorative 
measure  for  a  portion  of  the  Jewish  people.  He 
expresses  his  belief  that  those  Jews  who  are  led  to 
go  to  Palestine  will  be  happier  in  a  “  civil  community 
which  completely  harmonizes  with  their  historical 
and  religious  sentiments :  a  community  bound  to 
the  land  it  inhabits  by  something  deeper  even  than 
custom.”  To  this  every  one  interested  in  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  such  Jews  as  wish  to  settle  in  Palestine  can 
cheerfully  assent,  but  this  is  not  political  Zionism. 

1  In  the  Introduction  (dated  September  20th,  1918)  to  N.  So- 
kolow’s  History  of  Zionism  (London,  1919),  pp.  xxjx-xxxiv. 


Preface 


•  • 

Xll 

Apparently,  the  political  Zionists  themselves  have 
come  to  a  realization  of  the  vagueness  of  the  former 
declaration,  for  a  demand  is  being  made  for  a  more 
precise  statement  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  British 
Government  towards  Palestine.1 

The  fact  is  that  a  declaration  such  as  Mr.  Bal¬ 
four  made  before  the  termination  of  the  conflict 
should  only  have  been  taken  at  the  time  as  an  in¬ 
dication  of  general  sympathy  with  the  ameliorative 
aspects  of  the  Zionistic  movement,  and  not  as  an 
endorsement  of  the  political  aims  of  the  Zionists  to 
reorganize  Palestine  as  a  distinctively  Jewish  State. 
Similarly,  the  endorsement  of  Mr.  Balfour’s  senti¬ 
ments  by  the  French  and  Italian  governments, 
couched  in  very  general  terms,  and  the  statement 
issued  last  September  by  President  Wilson  ought 
not  to  be  regarded  as  more  than  a  general  expression 
of  sympathy  with  the  humanitarian  phases  of  the 
Zionistic  movement. 

Events  that  have  transpired  since  the  termination 
of  the  war  justify  the  suspicion  —  and  indeed  more 
than  suspicion, —  that  the  statesmen  who  are  to  grap¬ 
ple  with  the  problem  of  the  reorganization  of 
Palestine  will  feel  their  way  cautiously.  Even  be¬ 
fore  the  termination  of  the  war  protests  from  Chris- 

1  See  the  London  Jewish  Chronicle  for  February  7th,  1919. 


tians  and  Mohammedans  were  raised  against  the 
political  program  of  Zionism.  Still  more  signifi¬ 
cant  is  the  attitude  of  representative  men  among 
English,  French  and  American  Jews.  In  England 
a  “  League  of  British  Jews  ”  was  formed  led  by 
such  men  as  Claude  G.  Montefiore  and  Israel  Abra¬ 
hams,  whose  authoritative  position  as  students  of 
Jewish  history  and  Jewish  religion  lends  great 
weight  to  their  utterances.  In  this  country,  a  state¬ 
ment  signed  by  over  three  hundred  representative 
American  Jews  from  all  parts  of  the  country,  pro¬ 
testing  against  the  program  of  the  political  Zion¬ 
ists  has  been  forwarded  to  the  Peace  Conference.1 
The  opposition  also  shows  itself  in  England  and  in 
this  country  in  warnings  raised  by  such  men  as  Sir 
George  Adam  Smith,  Herbert  Adams  Gibbons,  the 
Honorable  Henry  Morgenthau,  Ex-Ambassador  of 
the  United  States  to  Turkey,  and  others,  who  speak 
from  a  direct  knowledge  of  the  East  and  of  Eastern 
conditions.2 

In  the  spring  of  1918  the  French  government 
sent  a  commission  of  experts  to  Palestine  for  the 
purpose  of  investigating  the  economic  conditions 
and  the  attitude  of  the  natives  towards  political 

1  Republished  as  an  appendix  to  this  volume,  pp.  151-159. 

2  See  note  on  p.  n  7. 


XIV 


Preface 


Zionism.  Among  the  members  of  the  commission 
was  M.  Sylvain  Levi,  the  distinguished  Orientalist, 
who  in  the  same  year  was  sent  by  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment  to  this  country  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
views  of  Zionists,  and  Non-Zionists  as  well,  to¬ 
wards  the  proposed  reorganization  of  the  Jewish 
State.  The  result  of  M.  Levi’s  investigations  in 
Palestine  and  in  this  country  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
statement  that  he  made  before  the  Peace  Confer¬ 
ence  on  March  ist  which  was  decidedly  unfavor¬ 
able  to  political  Zionism.  Strong  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  upon  Professor  Levi  to  refrain  from 
exposing  the  weaknesses  of  political  Zionism,  but 
he  felt  it  his  duty,  on  the  basis  of  his  investigations, 
to  do  so,  with  the  result  of  bringing  down  on  him 
the  wrath  of  the  English  Zionists,  who  apparently 
believe  in  the  foolish  policy  of  forcible  suppression 
of  opposition  to  their  movement.  A  delegation  of 
English  Zionists  was  heard  by  the  Peace  Confer¬ 
ence  just  preceding  M.  Sylvain  Levi,  and  Dr.  Weiz- 
mann  in  his  account  to  the  Zionist  Conference  of  the 
result  of  the  hearing  was  frank  enough  to  state  that 
he  declined  to  shake  hands  with  M.  Levi,  and  ac¬ 
cused  him  of  “  betraying  ”  the  cause.1  This  exhi- 

1  See  the  report  of  the  Conference  in  the  Jewish  Exponent , 
Philadelphia,  for  March  28,  1919. 


XV 


Preface 


^  bition  of  bad  manners  as  well  as  of  bad  temper  does 
\  not  indicate  that  the  Zionists  are  as  confident  of 
1  their  ultimate  success  as  their  public  utterances  would 


not  yet  been  won  is  the  manner  in  which  the  po¬ 
litical  Zionists  have  shifted  their  position  of  late. 
They  now  place  the  organization  of  the  Jewish  State 
in  the  distant  future,  possibly  in  order  to  prepare 
their  followers  for  the  disappointment  that  will 
ensue  in  case  the  Peace  Conference  should  decide 
not  to  propose  steps  for  the  organization  of  such 
a  State.  Some  of  them  have  even  gone  so  far  as 
to  suggest  the  abandonment  of  the  designation 
“  Jewish  State  ”  and  now  speak  of  a  “  Common¬ 
wealth  of  Palestine.”  They  thereby  either  give  the 
whole  case  away,  or  raise  the  suspicion  of  proposing 
a  verbal  camouflage  to  conceal  the  real  aim  that 
they  have  in  mind.  It  is  probably  a  safe  guess  that 
the  leaders  have  been  given  an  intimation  that  the 
Peace  Conference  will  not  go  beyond  the  expression 
of  general  sympathy  with  Jewish  colonization  in 
Palestine  and  the  promise  to  secure  full  rights  to 
Jews  settled  there,  with  perhaps  local  autonomy  for 
the  colonies. 

But  irrespective  of  what  the  Peace  Conference 
may  or  may  not  do,  it  must  be  clear  to  all  who  view 


XVI 


Preface 


the  situation  calmly  that  the  Palestinian  problem,  as 
the  other  questions  connected  with  the  Near  East, 
will  occupy  the  thought  of  the  world  for  some  time 
to  come.  Meanwhile,  it  is  of  importance  to  under¬ 
stand  the  nature  of  these  problems.  Zionism  is  one 
of  them  (though  only  one)  and  the  wide  interest 
that  it  has  aroused,  which  is  not  limited  to  those  di¬ 
rectly  concerned,  is  sufficient  justification  for  mak¬ 
ing  the  attempt,  as  I  do  in  this  volume,  to  consider 
the  various  aspects  and  the  roots  of  the  movement, 
its  relation  to  the  general  Eastern  Question  and  to 
conditions  in  Palestine,  and  also  what  appear  to  me 
to  be  the  fallacies  of  political  Zionism  from  the  point 
of  view  of  a  student  of  history.  I  am  further  led 
to  make  this  endeavor  by  requests  that  have  reached 
me  from  various  sides  to  give  a  full  presentation  of 
the  reasons  why  many  who  have  made  a  study  of  the 
subject  cannot  accept  the  program  of  the  political 
Zionists. 

In  stressing  the  historical  point  of  view,  as  I  do 
throughout  the  volume,  I  trust  that  even  those  who 
may  not  be  disposed  to  agree  with  me  will  recognize 
that  I  do  not  look  upon  the  historical  treatment  of 
a  subject  as  a  cold-blooded  anatomical  dissection. 
The  historian  must  aim  to  clothe  the  skeleton  of  his 
facts  with  flesh  and  sinews,  aye,  even  to  supply  it 


•  • 


Preface 


xvi  1 


with  “  teeth.”  In  tracing  Zionism  to  its  roots,  as 
in  following  the  trend  of  Jewish  history  including 
a  survey  of  the  Reform  movement  in  Judaism,  and 
in  setting  forth  the  present-day  conditions  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  it  has  been  my  aim  not  only  to  be  fair,  but  also 
to  reveal  my  sympathies  for  those  larger  aspects 
of  Jewish  history  which  account  for  the  peculiar  in¬ 
terest  attaching  to  an  analysis  of  the  status  of  the 
Jews,  and  more  particularly  to  their  strange  sur¬ 
vival,  despite  all  vicissitudes.  For  the  Jews  fur¬ 
nish  a  single  and  singular  illustration  of  a  people 
commingling  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world  with¬ 
out  losing  their  identity  —  like  the  Gulf  Stream  that 
can  be  distinguished  from  the  great  body  of  the  sur¬ 
rounding  ocean  through  which  it  flows. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  touching  here  upon  a  weak¬ 
ness  of  the  Zionistic  movement  which  I  have  directly 
encountered  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  and 
which  consists  in  the  vagueness  of  the  definitions 
of  terms  such  as  “  Jewish  Nation,”  “  Jewish  culture,” 
“  Jewish  spirit,”  used  by  Zionists  in  describing  the 
movement.  This  is  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that 
many  of  those  who  make  public  addresses  and  write 
on  Zionism,  including  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
movement  in  this  country,  have  not  made  any  spe¬ 
cial  study  of  the  history  of  the  Jews  or  of  their 


xviii  Preface 

literature.  Without  such  study  one  is  apt  to  fall 
into  all  kinds  of  strange  vagaries.  The  tension  of 
the  situation  is  somewhat  relieved  upon  finding  dis¬ 
tinguished  jurists  extolling  the  glories  of  Judaism, 
of  which  they  know  little  either  in  theory  or  prac¬ 
tice,  and  expounding  the  beauties  of  the  Hebrew 
language  of  which  they  cannot  read  the  characters. 
The  task  of  the  student  of  the  subject  would  be 
much  simplified  if  Zionists  could  agree  upon  some 
clear  and  definite  statement  of  the  fundamentals 
that  might  be  labelled  as  “  genuine,”  with  the  addi¬ 
tional  warning,  “  beware  of  imitations,”  As  it  is, 
every  Zionist  feels  at  liberty  to  manufacture  his  own 
brand  of  Zionism.  This  is  particularly  the  case 
when  it  comes  to  a  definition  of  a  “  Jewish  State.” 
In  the  hope  of  overcoming  opposition  to  their  po¬ 
litical  program  some  Zionists  are  so  vague  in  their 
use  of  the  term  “  nation  ”  and  in  their  view  of  the 
“  Jewish  State,”  that  they  practically  define  both 
terms  out  of  existence.  I  have  tried  to  make  allow¬ 
ances  for  what  appear  to  be  merely  subtle  arguments 
in  the  presentation  of  the  subject  and  have  taken 
as  my  point  of  departure  that  a  “Jewish  State” 
means  what  the  term  used  implies  to  the  person 
of  average  intellect;  and  I  have  tried,  following  in 


Preface 


xix 


the  wake  of  Lord  Bryce,  to  distinguish  between  a 
“  nation  ”  and  a  “  nationality.”  1 

Lastly,  I  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it 
is  only  for  the  sake  of  convenience  that  I  have 
treated  the  subject  in  a  series  of  eight  sections.  The 
volume  should  be  read  as  a  whole,  and  I  trust  that 
those  who  do  read  it  will  reserve  their  judgment 
until  they  have  followed  the  presentation  of  the  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  end. 

A  word  of  grateful  acknowledgment  is  due,  as 
in  the  case  of  all  my  books,  to  my  wife,  my  severest 
and  my  most  sympathetic  critic,  who  has,  as  usual, 
read  through  the  manuscript  and  aided  in  revising 
the  proofs,  with  the  result  of  making  valuable  sug¬ 
gestions  and  of  detecting  slips  and  errors. 

It  is  a  pleasure  and  privilege  to  be  permitted  to 
write  on  the  dedication  page  the  name  of  a  valued 
friend  whose  career,  devoted  to  the  service  of  hu¬ 
manity,  has  exerted  a  deep  influence  on  my  own 
thought  and  whose  companionship  has  been  a  source 
of  real  inspiration  these  many  years. 

Philadelphia,  May,  1919. 


1  See  p.  68  et  seq. 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  FUTURE 
OF  PALESTINE 


i 

THE  THREE  ASPECTS  OF  ZIONISM 

Through  recent  events  Zionism  has  been  moved 
into  the  foreground  of  publicity.  The  movement, 
which  seeks  as  its  ultimate  aim  the  reorganization 
of  Palestine  as  a  Jewish  State,  is  of  interest  not  only 
to  Jews,  and  that  irrespective  of  their  attitude  to¬ 
wards  religion, —  but  also  to  non-Jews.  For  Zion¬ 
ism  involves  the  future  of  Palestine;  and  Palestine 
is  a  country  equally  sacred  to  the  followers  of  three 
great  religions, —  to  Christians  and  Mohammedans, 
as  well  as  to  Jews  —  who  together  constitute  about 
one-half  of  the  entire  population  of  the  world.1 

There  are  three  main  aspects  of  Zionism  which 
need  to  be  sharply  differentiated  from  each  other, 

1  There  are,  on  a  rough  estimate,  about  240  million  Moham¬ 
medans,  about  565  million  Christians  and  about  15  million 
Jews,  a  total  of  820  millions  or  about  50  per  cent,  of  the 
world’s  population. 

I  '  , 


2  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

though  in  the  movement  itself  they  tend  to  coalesce 
—  Religious,  Economic,  and  Political  Zionism. 
Religious  Zionism  is  an  integral  part  of  the  ortho¬ 
dox  Jewish  faith.  The  hope  of  a  return  of  the 
Jews  to  Palestine  rests  for  the  orthodox  believer 
upon  his  belief  in  the  fulfillment  of  divine  prophe¬ 
cies,  which  assert  that  Jehovah  will  gather  His 
chosen  people  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  restore 
the  Temple  service  as  of  old  (including  such  a  crude 
survival  of  primitive  worship  as  animal  sacrifices) 
and  re-establish  both  the  ancient  Jewish  priesthood 
and  the  Jewish  Kingdom.  This  belief  in  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews  is  closely  bound  up  with  another 
doctrine,  that  Jehovah  will  at  the  proper  time,  send 
a  Messiah  to  redeem  His  people  and  to  bring  all 
mankind  to  recognize  the  sway  of  the  one  God,  who 
chose  Israel  to  preach  His  doctrine  to  the  world.1 
Furthermore,  these  two  doctrines,  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  and  the  belief  in  a  Messiah, 
are  corollaries  following  from  a  third  doctrine, 
that  the  Jews  are  the  chosen  people  of  God. 

>'  Orthodox  Judaism  may  thus  be  said  to  rest  upon 
four  pillars  —  the  belief  in  one  God,  the  Telief  that 
the  Jews  are  His  people,  belief  in  the  Messiah  as 

1  See  M.  Friedlaender,  The  Jewish  Religion  (London,  1901), 
pp.  156-163. 


The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism  3 

God's  messenger  to  be  sent  to  redeem  His  people  and 
all  mankind,  and  belief  in  the  return  of  the  Jews  to 
their  native  land.  It  will  be  apparent  that  the 
Zionism  of  orthodox  Jews  assumes  an  indissoluble 
bond  between  religion  and  nationality.  According 
to  this  faith  the  Jews  are  bound  by  a  double  bond, 
but  the  national  bond,  although  tacitly  assumed,  has 
a  merely  theoretical  or  academic  force  until  the  time 
for  the  restoration  arrives.  Orthodox  Zionism, 
furthermore,  stands  on  the  platform  that  the  fulfill¬ 
ment  of  divine  prophecy  is  not  to  be  brought  about 
through  ordinary  human  agencies, —  not  even 
through  a  Peace  Conference, —  but  by  God  Himself 
in  His  own  time  and  in  His  own  way.  Religious 
Zionism  is,  therefore,  a  doctrine  hardly  capable  of 
being  translated  into  an  active  political  movement. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  only  a  small  proportion  of 
genuinely  orthodox  Jews  are  actively  engaged  in 
the  modern  Zionistic  movement,1  though  the  ortho¬ 
dox  longing  for  the  return  to  Zion  is,  as  we  shall  see, 
one  of  the  chief  roots  of  the  modern  movement  it¬ 
self. 

We  may  designate  as  economic  Zionism  the  ef- 

1  The  orthodox  group  represented  in  the  movement  is  known 
as  Mizrachi,  signifying  “  Eastern.”  See  Richard  Gottheil, 
Zionism,  pages  97  and  177.  The  group  was  founded  in  Vilno 
in  1903. 


4 


Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 


fort  which  has  to  a  large  degree  inspired  the  entire 
Zionistic  movement,  to  ameliorate  the  pitiable  condi¬ 
tion  of  Jews  living  in  such  countries  as  Russia  and 
Roumania,  without  rights  of  citizenship  and  sub¬ 
ject  to  all  manner  of  oppression,  alternating  with  per¬ 
secution  and  officially  sanctioned  pogroms.  Hud¬ 
dled  together  within  the  restricted  area  known  as  the 
“  Pale  ”  and  there  living  without  civic  rights,  they 
were  at  all  times  at  the  mercy  of  a  sinister  and  des¬ 
potic  government  which,  when  it  suited  its  purpose, 
inflamed  the  people  to  brutal  attacks  on  the  lives  and 
property  of  defenseless  men,  women  and  children. 
The  world  has  been  horrified  and  scandalized  at 
various  times  during  the  past  three  decades  by  re¬ 
ports  of  persecution,  murder  and  pillage  in  the  Jew¬ 
ish  Pale.  The  hopelessness  of  the  outlook  for  in¬ 
ternal  improvement  of  the  position  of  the  Jews  in 
these  countries,  to  which  we  may  add  Poland  where 
the  situation  was  likewise  disheartening,  naturally 
suggested  as  the  only  remedial  measure  a  plan  of 
securing  a  home  elsewhere.  Even  though  it  was 
realized  that  wholesale  emigration  was  not  possible, 
yet  some  measure  of  relief  would  be  afforded  by 
having  an  outlet  for  at  least  a  portion  of  the  con¬ 
gested  Jewish  population  in  Russian  Poland  and  Rou¬ 
mania,  forming  together  one-half  of  the  entire  num- 


The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism 


5 


ber  of  Jews  in  the  world.1  This  congestion,  more 
particularly  in  Russia  where  the  Jews  were  huddled 
together  within  the  Pale  of  settlement,  strictly  de¬ 
fined  by  the  Government,  emphasized  at  once  the 
seriousness  and  the  hopelessness  of  the  problem  un¬ 
less  unforeseen  changes  should  take  place.  It  was 
therefore  natural,  and  certainly  not  accidental,  that 
the  modern  Zionistic  movement  took  its  rise  in 
Russia,  and  at  first  purely  as  an  ameliorative  pro¬ 
gram.  When  in  1881  it  became  evident,  through 
the  promulgation  of  the  cruel  “  May  Laws/’  impos¬ 
ing  still  further  restrictions  on  the  Jewish  Pale, 
that  the  Russian  Government  instead  of  alleviating 
the  situation  was  determined  to  crush  all  hopes  of 
any  improvement,  a  physician,  Dr.  Leo  Pinsker, 
living  in  Odessa,  voiced  his  project  of  what  he 
called  “  Self-Emancipation  ”  for  the  Jews.2  By 
this  he  meant  an  effort  on  the  part  of  Jews  them¬ 
selves  to  secure  a  new  home  in  some  soil  where  they 
might  live  safely  and  develop  freely  without  the 
pressure  of  the  unequal  struggle  imposed  upon  them 

1  Almost  seven  million  in  Russia  and  what  was  Russian  Po¬ 
land,  and  over  300,000  in  Roumania. 

2  This  is  the  title  of  a  work  issued  by  him  in  German  in 
1882  ( Auto-Emancipation ),  and  translated  into  English  un¬ 
der  the  title  Self -Emancipation .  by  A.  A.  L.  Finkenstein,  Lon¬ 
don,  1891. 


6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

through  restrictive  governmental  measures.  The 
project  was  one  born  of  despair  and  which  was  not 
unnatural  in  view  of  an  anti-Semitic  outbreak  in 
Germany  and  Austria,  which  threatened  the  position 
and  rights  of  the  Jews  even  in  these  politically  more 
advanced  countries.  Pinsker  himself  was  quite  in¬ 
different  to  Palestine  as  a  land  of  refuge,  but  as  a 
consequence  of  the  stimulus  exerted  by  his  pro¬ 
posed  solution  of  what  had  become  known  as  the 
“  Jewish  Question/’  organizations  were  formed 
throughout  Russia,  known  as  “  Lovers  of  Zion,”  to 
encourage  the  colonization  of  Jews  in  the  Holy 
Land.  These  organizations  spread  to  Germany  and 
Austria  under  the  influence  of  the  reaction  upon  the 
Jews  in  those  countries  of  the  wave  of  anti-Semitic 
piejudice,  while  sympathy  for  their  oppressed  breth¬ 
ren  in  Eastern  lands  led  to  branches  being 
formed  in  Western  Europe,  and  also  in  the  United 
States. 

With  this  aspect  of  Zionism,  which  merely  in¬ 
volves  the  colonization  of  Jews  in  a  land  which  had 
both  historical  and  sacred  associations,  Jews  every¬ 
where  sympathized,  even  though  it  was  felt  that 
Palestine  afforded  an  outlet  for  only  a  small  por¬ 
tion  of  the  superfluous  population.  North  and 
South  America  received  by  far  the  bulk  of  the  Rus- 


7 


The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism 

sian  Jews  who  after  1881  began  to  emigrate  en 
masse  from  the  land  of  oppression,  and  during  the 
past  three  and  a  half  decades  over  two  million  Jews 
have  wended  their  way  westward  and  not  eastward.1 
Events  have,  therefore,  moved  in  a  direction  quite 
contrary  to  the  hopes  of  the  “  Lovers  of  Zion,”  but 
the  movement  for  Palestinian  colonization  was  not 
abandoned,  and  Jewish  colonies  on  a  small  scale 
began  to  be  formed  in  Palestine.  The  effort  made 
a  strong  though  largely  sentimental  appeal  to  Jews 
as  an  ameliorative  measure  of  peculiar  interest,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  possibility  that  it  afforded  of  improving 
the  economic  conditions  in  Palestine  itself  through 
the  influx  of  energetic  and  enthusiastic  groups,  even 
if  these  were  not  very  large  ones.  Had  Zionism 
confined  itself  to  the  purely  economic  aspect  of  pro¬ 
viding  an  outlet,  even  though  a  limited  one,  for  the 
overflow  of  the  Jewish  population  in  Russia,  there 
would  never  have  arisen  any  differences  of  opinion 
as  to  the  beneficial  character  of  a  movement  aiming 
to  establish  Jewish  colonies  organized  on  the  basis 
of  autonomous  government  in  a  country  that  would 
benefit  thereby.  The  sentimental  background  to 
such  colonies  would  have  given  the  movement  addi- 

1  According  to  the  statistics  in  the  American  Jewish  Year- 
Book  for  1918-19,  p.  345  (Philadelphia,  1919). 


8  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

tional  force  without  introducing  any  disturbing 
factor. 

The  first  Jewish  colony  was  established  in  Pales¬ 
tine  in  1870  by  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle, 
the  first  Zionist  colony  in  1882.  Others  soon  fol¬ 
lowed.  The  project  was  largely  aided  by  Baron 
Edmond  de  Rothschild,  of  Paris,  but  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  those  colonies  flourished  best  which  were 
formed  and  maintained  by  the  enthusiasm  and  de¬ 
votion  of  the  colonists  themselves.  At  present 
there  are  some  forty  Jewish  colonies  in  various  parts 
of  Palestine,  with  a  total  population  of  somewhat 
over  1 0,000. 1  Small  as  this  number  is  in  compari¬ 
son  with  the  general  population  of  Palestine  and 
Syria,  the  Jewish  colonies  have  nevertheless  left 
their  mark  on  the  country.  Modern  methods  of  ag¬ 
riculture  have  been  introduced,  and  an  agricultural 
experiment  station  has  been  established  at  Athlit; 
and  with  that  keen  intellectual  ambition  which  is 
a  pronounced  trait  among  Jews  everywhere,  schools 
have  sprung  up  in  connection  with  the  colonies.2 

1  See  Appendix  No.  18  in  Nawratzki,  Die  Juedische  {Coloni¬ 
zation  Palaestinas  (Leipzig,  1914),  which  is  the  most  compre¬ 
hensive  work  on  the  subject. 

2  See  the  article  on  “  The  Educational  Institutions  of 
Palestine”  by  M.  Mnuchin  in  Kadimah  (New  York,  1918, 
Federation  of  American  Zionists),  pages  75-132. 


9 


The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism 

Encouragement  has  also  been  given,  by  the  side  of 
agriculture,  to  the  cultivation  of  the  technical  arts. 
The  most  notable  achievement  in  this  respect  is  the 
Bezalel  School  at  Jerusalem,  in  which  throughout 
the  year  over  four  hundred  persons  are  engaged  in 
learning  and  practicing  industrial  occupations,  weav¬ 
ing,  carpentry,  copper,  brass,  ivory  and  silver  work, 
lace  making,  lithography  and  the  like,  while  more 
recently  a  Jewish  Technical  Institute  has  been  estab¬ 
lished  on  the  basis  of  a  considerable  endowment  at 
Haifa. 

An  entirely  new  direction,  however,  was  given  to 
the  Zionistic  movement  through  the  introduction 
of  the  political  factor.  This  was  the  work  of  the 
late  Dr.  Theodor  Herzl,1  who  may  be  regarded 
as  the  founder  of  political  Zionism,  which,  quite 
distinct  from  the  religious  and  economic  phases, 
has  as  its  ultimate  aim  the  conversion  of  Palestine 
into  a  Jewish  State.  In  1896  Herzl  launched  the 
new  movement  by  publishing  his  monograph  on  the 
“  Jewish  State,”  2  in  which  as  the  solution  of  the 
Jewish  Question,  the  organization  of  the  Jews  as 

1  Born  in  Budapest  in  i860,  died  in  Vienna  1904,  Dr.  Herzl 
was  a  writer  and  journalist  by  profession,  and  for  many  years 
associated  with  the  leading  paper  of  Vienna,  the  Neue  Freie 
Presse. 

2  English  translation  by  Sylvie  d’Avigdor  (London,  1896). 


io  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

a  nationalistic  unit  was  proposed,  with  a  view  of  cre¬ 
ating  a  political  center  for  the  reestablishment  of  a 
Jewish  Nation.  Herzl  reached  this  rather  remark¬ 
able  conclusion  as  the  result  of  his  interpretation 
of  the  cause  of  the  difficulties  which  the  Jews  en¬ 
countered  even  in  those  countries  in  which  they 
had  been  accorded  political  rights.  Convinced  that 
the  existence  of  a  “  Jewish  Question  ”  in  the  en¬ 
lightened  nineteenth  century  was  due  in  its  last 
analysis  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  actually  formed  a 
separate  nationality,  his  thought  was  centered  on 
the  creation  of  a  visible  focus  for  this  Jewish  na¬ 
tionality.  Through  the  reestablishment  of  the  Jews 
as  a  nation,  the  bond  which  in  Herzl’s  view  was  the 
real  tie  binding  them  together  would  not  only  be 
strengthened,  but  would  become  an  active  force 
through  diplomatic  pressure  and  other  means  ex¬ 
erted  by  a  real  Jewish  State,  in  securing  protection 
for  Jews  everywhere.  The  plan  of  a  Jewish  State, 
it  will  be  seen,  was  in  one  respect  merely  the  exten¬ 
sion  of  Pinsker’s  project  of  self-emancipation,  but 
Herzl  sought  to  attain  the  aim  in  view  through  lay¬ 
ing  the  chief  emphasis  on  what  he  considered  the 
nationalistic  bond  uniting  Jews  wherever  they  may 

A  second  edition  by  J.  de  Haas  was  published  in  New  York 
in  1904. 


The  Three  Aspects  of  Zionism  11 

be  found.  Herzl  in  thus  striking  the  national  note  ' 
ga\  e  an  entirely  new  turn  to  the  Zionistic  movement,  ■ .  ‘  i 
and  since  the  first  Zionistic  Congress  held  at  Basel 
in  1897,  through  Herzl’s  energetic  efforts,  the  po-*'' 
litical  note  has  been  the  dominant  one  in  the  Zion¬ 
istic  movement,  attaching  to  itself  both  the  religious 
and  the  economic  aspects  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure 
a  far  more  general  cooperation  for  the  ultimate  aim 
of  political  Zionism.  But  on  the  other  hand,  po¬ 
litical  Zionism  has  brought  to  a  practical  issue  ques¬ 
tions  which  hitherto  had  been  of  more  academic  and 
theoretical  interest,  whether  the  Jews  actually  were 
a  nation,  and  if  so,  whether  it  was  desirable  for 
them  to  reorganize  themselves  in  a  political  sense 
after  having  ceased  to  be  a  nation  from  the  political 
point  of  view  for  over  2000  years. 

Such,  then,  are  the  three  aspects  of  Zionism  which 
need  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  order  to  reach  an  un¬ 
derstanding  of  the  present  situation. 

Religious  Zionism  should  demand  the  respect  of 
those  who  cannot  accept  the  doctrine  on  which  it 
rests.  Being  purely  an  ideal,  it  is  an  impressive 
dream  and  also  innocuous.  Economic  Zionism, 
involving  the  further  development  of  Jewish  colon¬ 
ization  in  Palestine,  is  a  movement  that  merits  en¬ 
couragement  and  aid  in  every  possible  way,  not  only 


12 


Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

because  it  offers  free  and  happy  development  for 
Jews  attracted  for  one  reason  or  the  other  to  the 
Holy  Land,  but  also  because  it  directly  conduces 
to  the  improvement  of  economic  conditions  in 
Palestine  itself.  Political  Zionism,  however,  is  an 
entirely  different  matter  and  must  be  viewed  from 
a  totally  different  angle.  It  involves  not  only  dif¬ 
ficulties,  as  the  Zionists  themselves  recognize,  but 
also  dangers  which  in  the  opinion  of  non-Zionists 
are  sufficiently  serious  to  condemn  the  entire  move¬ 
ment  as  unfortunate  and  as  threatening  the  position 
of  Jews  throughout  the  world.  Before  taking  up 
certain  fundamental  objections  to  political  Zionism 
it  is  necessary  for  us  to  trace  the  three  aspects  of 
Zionism,  which  thus  coalesce  in  the  most  recent 
political  phase,  to  their  roots. 


II 


THE  ROOTS  OF  MODERN  ZIONISM 

In  tracing  modern  Zionism  to  its  source  we  discover  w' 
three  factors  contributing  in  about  equal  propor¬ 
tions  to  its  rise  and  growth,  to  wit :  the  persistence 
of  the  longing  of  orthodox  and  also  of  unorthodox 
Jews  for  the  old  homeland;  secondly,  the  persistence 
of  the  retention  of  the  nationalistic  aspect  to  Juda¬ 
ism,  even  though  inconsistent  with  the  basis  on 
which  that  religion  rests;  and  thirdly,  the  conditions 
under  which  Jews  were  formerly  forced  to  live  and 
under  which  to  a  large  extent  they  still  live  in  coun¬ 
tries  like  Russia,  Roumania  and  Poland.  Let  us 
consider  these  three  roots  of  Zionism. 

Pirst,  let  us  not  undervalue  the  force  of  sentiment 
in  swaying  human  lives.  Amiel,  the  French  thinker, 
says  1  that  “  the  decisive  events  of  the  world  take 
place  in  the  intellect.”  I  should  be  inclined  to  as¬ 
sign  a  still  higher  place  to  sentiment  as  perhaps  the 
most  powerful  incentive  to  human  action ;  and 
Zionism  is  an  illustration  in  point. 

1  Journal  Intime  under  date  of  Dec.  28,  1880, 

13 


14  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning ; 

Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth, 

If  I  remember  thee  not; 

If  I  set  not  Jerusalem 
Above  my  chief est  joy.”  1 

Thus  sang  a  Zionist  of  about  2500  years  ago  in 
enforced  exile  in  Babylonia,  to  which  he,  with  his 
fellow-countrymen,  had  been  deported  by  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  ruler  Nebuchadnezzar  II  in  586  b.  c.  De¬ 
spite  the  vicissitudes  through  which  the  Jews  have 
passed  during  the  past  two  millenniums,  despite  the 
changes  that  have  come  over  Palestine  itself,  that 
longing  has  persisted  and  is  an  essential  factor  in 
modern  Zionism,  swaying  both  those  to  whom  the 
return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  to  be  reconstituted 
there  as  a  nation,  is  a  doctrine  of  religious  faith, 
as  well  as  those  who  view  the  hoped  for  reorganiza¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation  purely  as  a  political 
measure,  constituting,  according  to  them,  the  logical 
solution  of  what  is  commonly  termed'  the  “  Jewish 
Question.”  Zionism  thus  makes  its  appeal  to  the 
unorthodox  Jew  as  well  as  to  the  one  for  whom 
Zionism  is  a  part  of  his  religious  faith. 

There  is  assuredly  something  impressive,  some- 


1  Psalm  137,  5-6. 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zio  nism  15 

thing  romantic  and  picturesque,  in  the  thought  of 
a  people  that  two  millenniums  ago  was  a  nation, 
coming  back,  after  wanderings  throughout  the 
world,  to  its  ancient  home,  there  to  lead  again  the 
life  so  eloquently  pictured  in  the  pages  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  possibility  of  the  fulfillment  of 
a  hope  that  has  persisted  for  so  long  a  period  stirs 
the  imagination ;  and  all  the  more  so  at  the  present 
moment,  when  other  nations,  like  the  Poles,  the 
Czechs,  the  Slavs,  the  Armenians,  are  about  to  re¬ 
gain  a  national  independence  that  they  had  lost. 
If  Poland  is  to  be  given  back  to  the  Poles,  Bohemia 
to  be  restored  to  the  Bohemians,  and  Armenia  is 
to  be  reorganized  for  the  Armenians  —  why  not 
Palestine  for  the  Jews?  The  argument  gains  ap¬ 
parent  force  from  the  feelings  of  Christian  believ¬ 
ers  who  have  stepped  forth  as  Zionists,  and  who 
are  encouraging  the  movement  for  a  return  of  the 
Jews  to  what  was  once  their  native  land,  though 
y  strangely  enough,  Jewish  Zionists  are  apt  to  over- 
\\  look  the  important  fact  that  from  the  Christian  point 
of  view  the  restoration  of  Palestine  is  the  prelude 
1  t0  the  second  coming  of  Jesus,  and  that  this  will  be 
followed  by  the  disappearance  of  the  Jews  through 
their  acceptance  of  the  Messiah  whom  they  once  re¬ 
jected.  Insofar  as  official  and  unofficial  Christian- 


1 6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

ity  is  interested  in  Zionism,  it  is  because  it  may  be 
expected  to  lead  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  New 
Covenant  over  the  old.  Christian  Zionists  favor 
Jewish  Zionism  as  a  step  leading  not  to  the  perpetu¬ 
ation  but  to  the  disappearance  of  the  Jews.  In  this 
respect  the  Christian  believer  places  himself,  though, 
of  course,  involuntarily,  on  almost  the  same  plane 
as  the  anti-Semitic  agitators  of  Germany  and  Aus¬ 
tria  who  should,  consistently,  be  most  enthusiastic 
Zionists,  since  the  movement,  if  successful,  would 
afford  the  possibility  of  getting  rid  at  least  of  the 
“  presence  ”  of  the  Jews  scattered  among  European 
nations.  But  of  this  aspect  more  anon. 

More  than  this,  Zionism  makes  its  appeal  to  the 
unorthodox  Christian  who  is  subject  to  the  sway 
of  romantic  sentiment.  One  need  only  recall 
George  Eliot’s  eloquent  portrayal  of  the  sentiment 
in  Daniel  Deronda  to  recognize  its  influence  even 
on  one  who  had  thrown  off  all  belief  in  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christianity.  She  makes  one  of  the  char¬ 
acters  in  her  novel  voice  the  nationalistic  hope  in 
the  following  terms. 

“  Let  the  torch  of  visible  community  be  lit !  Let 
the  reason  of  Israel  disclose  itself  in  a  great  outward 
deed,  let  there  be  another  great  migration,  another 
choosing  of  Israel  to  be  a  nationality,  whose  members 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  17 

may  still  stretch  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  even  as  the 
sons  of  England  and  Germany,  whom  enterprise  car¬ 
ries  afar,  but  who  still  have  a  national  hearth  and  a 
tribunal  of  national  opinion.  .  .  .  Let  the  central  fire 
be  kindled  again,  and  the  light  will  reach  afar.  .  .  . 
The  sons  of  Judah  have  to  choose,  that  God  may  again 
choose  them.  The  Messianic  time  is  the  time  when 
Israel  shall  will  the  planting  of  the  national  ensign.” 

George  Eliot  reveals  her  own  feelings  in  those 
words. 

We  need  have  no  quarrel  with  the  sincere  Chris¬ 
tian  believer  whose  sympathy  with  Zionism  involves 
the  fulfillment  of  a  hope  to  which  he  has  clung  with 
a  persistency  equal  to  that  of  the  orthodox  Jew,  who 
never  fails  to  include  in  his  prayers  the  hope  of 
the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  center 
of  the  Jews.  We  should  in  a  similar  spirit  respect 
this  doctrine  of  orthodox  Judaism,  though  unable 
to  subscribe  to  it,  but  this  must  not  deter  us  from 
recognizing  the  source  of  this  doctrine,  and  if  we 
do  so  we  will  see  the  serious  mischief  that  the  Zion- 
istic  longing  is  bound  to  work  when  it  is  divorced 
from  its  attachment  to  religion,  as  is  done  by  the 
leaders  of  political  Zionism,  particularly  by  the 
American  and  English  leaders  and  by  many  of  those 
who  have  become  Zionists  just  because  of  this  di- 


1 8  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

vorce.  Through  this  divorce  Zionism  becomes  a 
political  question  fraught  with  mischief,  confusion 
and  dangers.  I  have  not  now  in  mind  the  fact  that 
these  leaders  of  political  Zionism,  and  many  of 
their  followers,  have  not  the  slightest  intention  of 
abandoning  their  citizenship  in  the  country  to  which 
they  belong  and  where  they  enjoy  as  loyal  citizens 
the  full  rights  and  privileges  of  their  fellows, 
though  this  aspect  of  the  movement  cannot  be  en¬ 
tirely  ignored.  Can  one  imagine  Moses,  who  in¬ 
augurated  the  first  Zionistic  movement,  convening 
a  congress  and  saying  in  his  presidential  address  to 
his  followers,  “  You  cross  the  Red  Sea,  and  plunge 
into  the  wilderness,  while  I  remain  behind  at  the 
comfortable  court  of  Pharaoh  ”  ?  Can  one  for  a 
moment  conceive  of  Joseph  Smith  gathering  the 
Mormons  around  him  and  sending  them  out  to  found 
a  new  state  in  Utah,  instead  of  leading  them  there? 
That  is  not  the  way  in  which  great  movements  are 
inaugurated  or  carried  out.  Those  who  profess  to 
be  Zionists  but  who  have  no  intention  of  attaching 
themselves  to  the  movement  are  merely  Zionists  by 
proxy.  I  have  in  mind  rather  those  who  profess  to 
be  Zionists  and  intend  to  go  to  Palestine,  but  for 
whom  Zionism  is  a  political  movement,  who  look 
at  it  purely  from  its  supposed  nationalistic  point  of 


The  R  oots  of  Modern  Zionism  19 

view,  who  want  to  see  Jews  organized  as  a  separate 
group,  to  recreate  a  Jewish  nation,  to  bring  into  be¬ 
ing  what  they  call  a  Jewish  culture,  to  reintroduce 
Hebrew  not  because  it  is  a  sacred  tongue  in  which 
the  greatest  religious  contributions  of  the  Jews  are 
couched,  but  as  a  national  language,  so  that  the  Jews 
may  be  in  every  respect  a  distinct  nationalistic  unit. 
Against  this  conception  of  Zionism,  which  is  the 
chief,  aye,  the  dominating,  note  in  the  movement, 
heard  above  all  other  sounds,  I  venture  to  set  up 
the  thesis  that  while  Zionism  as  a  doctrine  of  faith 
is  intelligible,  and  Zionism  as  an  economic  scheme  to 
promote  agricultural  colonies  in  Palestine  is  timely 
and  should  be  encouraged  by  all  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  such  Jews  as  wish  to  settle  in  Palestine, 
Zionism  as  a  political  measure  is  an  anachronism. 

Now,  why  can  one  be  so  positive  in  maintaining 
this  thesis?  Simply  because  the  second  root  of 
Zionism,  which  furnishes  us  also  with  the  reason 
for  the  persistence  of  the  sentiment  which  we  have 
seen  to  be  the  first  root,  is  to  be  found  in  the  con¬ 
ditions  prevailing  throughout  antiquity,  which  al¬ 
ways  interpreted  religion  in  terms  of  nationality. 
In  contrast  to  the  modern  point  of  view  which  looks 
upon  a  religion  as  a  concern  of  the  individual ,  an¬ 
tiquity  made  religion  an  affair  of  the  group.  As  a 


20  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

survival  from  this  earlier  status  of  religion,  Juda¬ 
ism  retained  a  double  aspect,  religious  on  the  one 
side,  with  the  nationalistic  aspiration  attached  to  it 
on  the  other.  With  the  opening  of  the  new  era  in 
which  we  live,  the  nationalistic  attachment  disap¬ 
peared  from  the  consciousness  of  the  Jews  living  in 
lands  in  which  they  had  obtained  full  political  rights, 
though  it  continued  to  survive  in  the  form  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  a  restoration  of  the  people,  to 
be  brought  about,  however,  not  through  a  political 
Zionistic  movement,  but  as  the  fulfillment  of  a  pro¬ 
phetic  hope,  which  will  come  to  pass  as  part  of  the 
Divine  plan  of  the  Deity  especially  concerned  for 
His  “  chosen  people.”  This  double  aspect  of  re¬ 
ligion,  religion  as  an  affair  of  the  group  and  re¬ 
ligion  as  a  matter  between  the  individual  and  his 
conscience,  requires  some  further  explanation. 

Until  comparatively  recent  times  there  existed 
as  an  inherent  feature  of  political  organization  in 
all  European  countries,  a  close  union  between 
Church  and  State;  and  as  a  survival  of  this  condi¬ 
tion  we  still  find,  even  in  such  advanced  democra¬ 
cies  as  England  and  Holland,  an  established  church, 
recognized  as  the  official  one,  though  with  freedom 
of  worship  and  conscience  for  all  non-conformist 
denominations  as  they  are  called.  Now,  how  did 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  21 

such  a  union  come  about?  The  answer  is  that  the 
union  is  the  direct  outcome  of  the  view  of  religion 
which  prevailed  everywhere  throughout  antiquity 
and  which  assumed  that  every  country  was  under  the 
special  protection  of  some  god  or  gods.  Every  na¬ 
tion  in  antiquity  regarded  itself  as  a  chosen  people, 
singled  out  by  some  deity  as  his  very  own,  though 
in  reality  it  was  the  people  who  chose  the  god;  and 
from  this  point  of  view  religion  was  necessarily  in¬ 
terpreted  in  terms  of  the  solidarity  of  the  group. 
The  gods  of  Greece  were  the  gods  of  the  Greek 
people.  The  individual  entered  into  consideration 
merely  as  a  member  of  the  group.  The  concern 
of  the  gods  was  primarily  for  the  group  and,  as  a 
corollary,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  gods  was  limited 
to  the  district  in  which  a  group  lived.  It  was  con¬ 
sidered  perfectly  natural  that  every  people  should 
have  its  own  god  or  gods ;  as  natural  as  that  a  people 
should  have  its  own  language  and  its  peculiar  cus¬ 
toms.  From  this  it  followed  that  only  those  who 
were  Greeks  could  worship  Greek  gods.  It  was 
presumptuous  and  sacrilegious  for  others  to  do  so, 
since  the  Greek  gods  were  concerned  only  with  the 
Greek  group.  Citizenship  was  likewise  linked  to 
nationality,  for  no  one  could  be  a  Greek  citizen  who 
was  not  a  Greek  by  descent  or  had  become  Greek 


22  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

by  intermarriage  with  someone  who  was  Greek. 
Religion,  nationality  and  citizenship  thus  formed  a 
triple  wall  sharply  separating  a  political  group  from 
a  neighboring  one.  Extension  of  Greek  sover¬ 
eignty,  especially  after  the  period  of  Alexander  the 
Great  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  before 
this  era,  introduced  some  modifications  of  this  hide¬ 
bound  order  of  things,  but  for  all  that  the  prevail¬ 
ing  belief  continued  to  be  that  religion  as  the  con¬ 
cern  of  the  group  was  inseparable  from  nationality. 
Even  the  still  larger  scope  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
after  the  imperialistic  policy  was  in  full  swing,  could 
not  conceive  of  a  Civis  Romanus  who  was  not  also 
a  worshipper  of  the  Roman  gods.  The  tribal  god 
might  by  extension  of  Roman  sovereignty  become 
a  deity  of  almost  universal  sway,  but  he  would  for 
all  that  retain  his  function  of  recognizing  the  po¬ 
litical  group  who  constituted  his  worshippers,  simply 
on  the  ground  that  they  belonged  to  the  State  over 
which  his  jurisdiction  extended. 

Religion  and  nationality  were  the  two  sides  of  a 
medallion.  This  was  the  case  among  all  nations 
of  antiquity,  and  such  a  conception  of  religion  ac¬ 
counts  for  the  fact  also  that  the  welfare  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  plays  such  a  secondary  role  in  most  an¬ 
cient  religions.  Prayers  and  incantations  make 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  23 

their  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  people  as  a  whole. 
The  gods  are  to  bring  victory  in  war,  to  secure  good 
crops  for  the  country  and  to  afford  relief  from 
pestilence,  but  the  specifically  individual  needs  are 
conspicuous  by  their  absence  from  the  practical  side 
of  the  ritual.  The  king  appears  to  be  the  only  in¬ 
dividual  who  has  a  place  in  religion,  and  that  merely 
because  the  ruler,  as  standing  nearer  to  the  gods  — 
frequently  regarded  indeed  as  a  direct  descendant 
of  the  gods  —  affects  the  welfare  of  the  group. 
Upon  his  good  relations  to  the  gods  the  happiness 
and  prosperity  of  the  group  depended.  If  things 
go  well  with  the  king,  it  is  a  proof  of  divine  favor 
.  extended  to  the  people  and,  correspondingly,  a  mis¬ 
fortune  to  the  ruler  or  to  his  household  affects  the 
entire  group. 

The  ancient  Hebrews  formed  no  exception  to  the 
rule.  They  had  a  national  deity  whom  they  called 
Yahweh,1  who  was  their  protector,  and  whose  con¬ 
trol  was  limited  to  the  territory  which  the  Hebrews 
could  call  their  own.  They  were  the  chosen  peo¬ 
ple  of  this  national  protector,  precisely  as  groups 
around  them  had  been  chosen  by  some  other  god. 

1  Or  Jahweh,  as  the  name  may  also  be  written.  The  writ¬ 
ing  with  Y  is  preferable  in  an  English  transliteration  of  the 
name.  See  note  on  page  31. 


24  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

This  view  prevailed  in  the  days  of  David,  who  com¬ 
plains  that  when  he  was  driven  out  of  his  country 
by  the  enmity  of  Saul,  he  was  forced  out  of  the 
presence  of  Yahweh.1  David  could  not  worship 
the  national  deity  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines, 
because  that  district  lay  outside  of  Yahweh’s  do¬ 
main.  Jerusalem  becomes  Yahweh’s  city,  and  the 
Temple  there  his  dwelling-place,  and,  precisely  as 
among  the  Greeks,  only  those  who  were  Hebrews 
could  worship  in  the  central  sanctuary  of  Yahweh 
and  in  the  shrines  of  this  deity  scattered  throughout 
that  part  of  the  country  which  belonged  to  the  He¬ 
brews. 

But  in  the  ninth  century  before  our  era  a  move¬ 
ment  begins  which  results  in  an  entirely  new  con¬ 
ception  of  religion,  a  conception  which  was  destined 
to  cut  the  bond  between  religion  and  nationality, 
and  which  ultimately  led  to  the  view  of  religion 
prevalent  in  our  days  as  the  concern  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  and  not  of  the  group.  This  striking  de¬ 
parture  was  inaugurated  by  a  body  of  itinerant 
preachers  who  became  known  as  Prophets.  They 
began  by  proclaiming  that  Yahweh  is  unlike  other 
gods,  that  he  searches  the  hearts  and  punishes  the 
wrong-doers,  that  his  concern  for  the  group  is  con- 

1 1  Samuel  26,  19. 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  25 

ditioned  not  upon  caprice  or  upon  carrying  out 
ritualistic  obligations,  but  upon  the  obedience  of 
his  followers  to  certain  principles  involving  ethical 
distinctions  between  right  and  wrong.  These  Pro¬ 
phets,  addressing  themselves  to  their  people,  natu¬ 
rally  did  not  ignore  the  group,  but  they  boldly  an¬ 
nounced  that  Yahweh  had  rejected  his  people  be¬ 
cause  of  the  callousness  of  the  rulers,  because  of  the 
oppression  of  the  poor  by  the  rich,  because  of  the 
prevailing  injustice  in  the  courts  of  justice,  because 
crime  was  rampant.  Sin  was  looked  upon  as  dis¬ 
loyalty  to  Yahweh,  who  was  determined  to  destroy 
his  people  without  mercy  unless  they  would  mend 
their  ways.  Amos,  the  earliest  of  this  new  class 
of  teachers,  declares  that  because  of  their  sins  Yah¬ 
weh  has  decided  that  “  the  end  has  come  upon  my 
people  Israel ;  I  will  not  pardon  them  any  more.” 1 
Hosea  makes  the  same  prophecy  of  the  rejection 
of  the  people.2  Isaiah  exceeds  both  these  Prophets 
in  the  vehemence  of  his  denunciation,  and  empha¬ 
sizes  with  particular  force  that  sacrifices  and  tri¬ 
bute  are  an  abomination  to  Yahweh,  that  he  does 
not  want  his  worshippers  to  defile  his  holy  place  by 
coming  there  with  unclean  hands.3 


1  Amos  8,  1. 

2  Hosea,  Chap.  4. 


8  Isaiah  1,  13-17. 


26  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

Now  that  was  a  new  language,  one  that  had  never 
been  heard  before.  Its  significance  —  at  first 
hardly  conscious  to  the  Prophets  themselves  —  lay  in 
the  emphasis  which  it  placed  on  the  conduct  of  the 
individual  as  the  test  of  religion.  Under  the  old 
view  prevailing  throughout  antiquity,  the  individual 
entered  into  consideration  only  as  a  member  of  the 
group.  Under  the  new  view  the  conditions  were 
reversed,  and  the  group  entered  into  consideration 
as  representing  an  entity  composed  of  individuals. 

It  was  this  movement  that  led  to  Judaism  in  the 
historical  sense,  that  is  to  say,  a  religion  based  upon 
a  monotheistic  conception  of  divine  government  and 
making  the  conduct  of  the  individual  the  test  of  re¬ 
ligious  life.  It  is  doubtful  whether  at  first  the  Pro¬ 
phets  actually  did  conceive  of  Yahweh  as  the  only 
god,  but  their  teaching  that  Yahweh  imposed  jus¬ 
tice  and  righteous  conduct  as  an  obligation  upon 
his  followers  necessarily  led  to  the  view  which 
transformed  the  national  Yahweh  into  a  universal 
Jehovah.  A  more  definite  step  in  that  direction 
was  taken  after  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State 
by  a  Babylonian  monarch,  and  we  thus  see  Judaism 
emerging  as  the  butterfly  out  of  the  chrysalis  of 
Hebrew  nationalism  at  the  time  of  its  extinction. 
The  belief  in  a  God  of  universal  scope  concerned 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  27 

for  all  mankind  cuts  the  bond  between  religion  and 
nationality. 

It  is  a  fact  of  the  utmost  significance  that  the 
great  contribution  of  the  Jews  to  the  world’s  spir¬ 
itual  treasury  was  made  not  while  the  national  life 
was  flourishing,  but  as  it  was  ebbing  away.  The 
Prophets  with  their  revolutionary  doctrines  made 
their  appearance  when  the  southern  Kingdom  was 
beginning  to  show  symptoms  of  decline,  and  the 
movement  reached  its  height  after  this  kingdom 
had  disappeared  and  the  national  existence  of  the 
southern  Kingdom  was  threatened.  The  religion 
of  the  Prophets  is  the  swan  song  of  ancient  Hebra¬ 
ism,  and  the  example  of  a  people  flourishing  with¬ 
out  a  national  background  had  to  be  furnished  to 
the  world  in  order  to  bring  the  new  conception  of  re¬ 
ligion  to  fruition,  which  divorced  religion  from  na¬ 
tionality  and  made  it  solely  the  expression  of  the 
individual’s  aspiration  for  the  higher  life  and  for 
communion  with  the  source  of  all  being.  The  an¬ 
cient  Hebrews  disappeared.  It  was  the  Jews,  as 
we  should  call  the  people  after  the  Babylonian  Exile, 
who  survived,  and  they  survived  despite  the  fact 
that  they  never  recovered  their  national  independ¬ 
ence  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word. 

This,  to  be  sure,  was  not  made  manifest  at  once, 


28  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

and  to  the  superficial  observer  it  might  seem  that 
when,  under  the  mild  rule  of  Cyrus,  conqueror  of 
Babylon,  the  Jews  were  permitted  to  return  to  their 
native  country  and  to  establish  a  Temple  cult,  the 
nation  was  actually  being  reconstituted.  As  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  the  political  life  of  the  Jews  was  kept 
safely  under  the  control  of  the  Persian  governor  of 
Palestine ;  though  the  Jews  were  recognized  as  form¬ 
ing  a  political  unit.  This  was  in  accord  with  the 
policy  of  Cyrus  which,  in  contrast  to  Babylonian 
imperialism  that  aimed  to  crush  the  national  life  of 
conquered  nations,  favored  the  granting  of  as  much 
autonomy  to  a  subdued  people  as  was  consistent  with 
the  recognition  of  Persian  supremacy.  Cyrus,  and 
to  a  certain  extent  also  his  successors,  seemed  par¬ 
ticularly  anxious  not  to  interfere  with  the  religious 
life  in  the  countries  that  came  under  the  Persian 
sway ;  and  since  religion  and  nationality  were  closely 
yoked,  the  permission  granted  to  the  Jews  to  reor¬ 
ganize  their  cult  seemed  also  to  afford  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  the  renewal  of  national  existence.  To  a 
certain  extent  this  was  the  case,  but  ardent  Jews 
whose  longings  for  Zion  are  so  eloquently  voiced 
in  many  a  Psalm,  must  have  been  conscious  of  the 
fact  that  the  nationalistic  aspiration  had  assumed 
a  secondary  role,  trailing  behind  the  religious  boon 


29 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism 

of  being  permitted  to  appear  again  in  the  presence 
of  Yahweh  in  His  rebuilt  sanctuary  in  the  city  which 
Yahweh  had  chosen  as  His  abiding  place. 
Whether  these  ardent  religious  followers  of  the 
new  Judaism  also  realized  the  further  implication 
that  the  religion  had  actually  changed  the  people 
from  a  political  to  a  religious  unit  is  doubtful. 
Some  of  the  more  advanced  minds  may  have  felt 
the  profound  difference  between  the  purely  national 
aspirations  and  such  as  were  connected  primarily 
with  carrying  out  the  religious  ideals  of  the  Pro¬ 
phets.  For  the  masses,  however,  the  difficulties  in¬ 
volved  in  wrenching  the  political  from  the  religious 
life,  so  entirely  unheard  of  in  antiquity,  accounts 
for  the  strange  phenomenon  that  we  now  encounter 
a  Prophet  also  turning  Priest,  despite  the  inherent 
difference  between  the  functions  of  the  two.  Eze¬ 
kiel  (c.  592-570  b.  c.),  who  speaks  with  the  fervor 
of  an  Isaiah,  has  also  the  ardent  patriotism  of  a 
Jeremiah.  He  sketches  a  plan  1  for  the  religious 
reorganization  of  Israel  which  is  so  dominated  by 
the  priestly  ideal  that  from  Ezekiel  to  Ezra  (c. 
440  b.  c.)  who  perfects  the  Code  that  creates  a 
theocratic  state,  is  a  natural  step.  Ezra’s  Code, 
which  is  embodied  in  Exodus,  Leviticus  and  Num- 

1  Ezekiel,  Chaps.  40-48. 


30  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

bers,  was  subsequently  combined  with  the  two  earlier 
codes,  one  in  Exodus  and  the  other  in  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  These  codes  encased  in  a  frame¬ 
work  of  early  traditions  and  of  tribal  experiences 
became  the  present  Pentateuch,  which  served  at 
once  as  the  basis  of  religious  life  and  at  the  same 
time  recognized  the  solidarity  of  the  Jews  as  a 
political  unit. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  such  writers  as  the  so- 
called  Second  Isaiah  and  the  other  writing  Prophets 
of  the  post-exilic  period  who  followed  in  the  wake 
of  the  pre-exilic  speaking  Prophets,1  the  reconstitu¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews  as  a  political  unit  (though  without 
complete  independence)  was  a  misfortune,  for  it 
once  more  attached  the  religion  to  what  remained 
of  the  national  life.  Naturally,  the  Jews  felt  en¬ 
couraged  under  the  mild  policy  of  Persian  rule  to 
look  forward  to  regaining  their  complete  inde¬ 
pendence,  and,  though  Persia  saw  to  it  that  this 
hope  should  not  lead  to  any  definite  efforts,  yet  the 
hope  remained  and  continued  to  exercise  a  pro¬ 
found  influence.  But  with  the  Jews  occupied  with 
the  renewal  of  purely  national  aspirations,  the 
broader  outlook  of  post-exilic  Prophets,  whose  gaze 

1  On  this  contrast  between  speaking  and  writing  Prophets, 
see  Jastrow,  A  Gentle  Cynic,  p.  48  et  seq. 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  31 

was  directed  towards  the  time  when  the  supreme 
Author  of  all  being  would  become,  through  the  ex¬ 
ample  set  by  the  Jews,  the  sole  object  of  worship  of 
mankind,  was  obscured. 

The  universal  Jehovah  1  had  not  entirely  put  aside 
the  rule  of  the  tribal  Yahweh.  Yahweh  was  still 
viewed  as  the  special  protector  of  His  chosen  peo¬ 
ple  by  the  side  of  His  traits  as  the  God  of  universal 
scope.  The  crisis  came  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  who, 
as  the  successor  of  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  drew  the 
logical  conclusion  from  their  premises  and  substi¬ 
tuted  for  the  national  ideal  that  of  the  “  Kingdom 
of  God.”  “  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God’s.”  2  By  such  a  single  saying  Jesus  broke 
definitely  with  all  nationalistic  aims,  which  even  dur¬ 
ing  the  period  of  Roman  control,  strict  and  complete 
as  it  was,  the  Jews  did  not  entirely  abandon. 

1  The  name  Jehovah,  which  is  not  older  than  the  twelfth 
century  of  our  era,  is  a  combination  of  the  name  Adonai 
“Lord”  with  the  consonants  of  YHWH!  (or  JHWH)  form¬ 
ing  the  name  of  the  tribal  deity  Yahweh.  As  early  as  the 
fourth  century  b„c.  the  general  name  Adonai  for  deity  was 
substituted  for  the  personal  one  Yahweh,  under  the  influence 
of  the  growing  strength  of  the  monotheistic  conception  which 
found  it  distasteful  to  apply  the  name  of  an  old  tribal  deity 
to  a  spiritually  conceived  Power  of  universal  sway. 

2  Mark  12,  17. 


3  2  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  the  Romans  a  gener¬ 
ation  after  Jesus,  in  70  a.  d.  Subsequent  efforts 
of  rebellion  failed  —  though  not  without  a  heroic 
struggle.  The  last  vestiges  of  Jewish  independence 
disappeared  about  135  a.  d.  and  the  Jews  scattered 
in  all  directions,  though  long  before  this  Jewish 
settlements  in  considerable  number  were  being 
founded  in  various  parts  of  the  ancient  world  —  in 
Babylonia,  in  upper  Egypt,  particularly  at  Alexan¬ 
dria,  in  Asia  Minor  and  even  in  Greece.  But  wher¬ 
ever  the  Jews  went  they  carried  with  them,  as  a  sur¬ 
vival  of  their  hopes,  the  Zionistic  longing.  Bound 
by  a  tradition  from  which  they  could  not  extricate 
themselves,  they  continued  to  echo  through  the  ages 
the  plaint  of  the  Psalmist, 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning; 

Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth, 

If  I  remember  thee  not.” 

I  Evolution  in  human  society  never  completely  sub- 
1  stitutes  the  new  for  the  old,  but  carries  part  of  the 
If  era  into  the  new  epoch.  Judaism  represents  a 
|;  new  conception  of  religion  which  makes  religion  an 
affair  of  the  individual  and  a  bond  uniting  the  in- 
vidual  to  the  rest  of  mankind.  Zionism  rests  upon 
the  sway  of  the  older  conception  which  attached  re- 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  33 

ligion  to  the  national  life,  and  so  we  have  the  strange 
phenomenon  of  a  religion  which  declares  through 
one  of  its  exponents, 

“  Have  we  not  all  one  Father  ?  ” 1 

and  which  looks  forward  to  the  time  when  the 
Temple  of  Jehovah  will  be  called 

“  A  House  of  Prayer  for  all  peoples,”  2 

yet  retaining  as  a  doctrine  of  a  faith  which  eschews 
nationality  a  hope  for  the  restoration  of  the  national 
life  of  a  little  group  within  a  restricted  area.  Juda¬ 
ism  and  Zionism  are  thus  mutually  exclusive,  but 
for  all  that  passed  down  the  ages  linked  to  one  an¬ 
other  as  inseparable  partners. 

This,  then,  is  the  second  root  of  Zionism  —  the 
survival  in  Judaism  of  the  early  conception  of  re¬ 
ligion  which  attached  it  closely  to  nationalistic  limita¬ 
tions,  and  which  continued  to  interpret  even  a  re¬ 
ligion  universalistic  in  its  implication  in  terms  of 
the  solidarity  of  the  group.  So  strong  was  the 
hold  of  the  ancient  conception  of  religion  that  the 
very  people  to  whom  we  owe  the  divorce  of  religion 
from  nationality,  preserved  and  emphasized  the 
union  of  the  two  factors  straight  through  the  cen- 


1  Malachi  2,  10. 


2  Isaiah  56,  7. 


34  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

turies  until  the  advent  of  the  new  era  in  which  we 
live.  Strange  indeed  this  double  aspect  of  Judaism 
must  appear  to  those  who  overlook  the  historic 
causes  which  brought  it  about.  Strange  also  that 
the  Jews  themselves  did  not  recognize  that  they 
survived  the  extinction  of  national  life  and  their 
dispersion  through  the  Western  world,  because  they 
had  become  more  than  a  nation. 

It  was  natural,  however,  for  the  Jews  thus  to  con¬ 
tinue  to  combine  their  religion  with  the  hope  for  a 
restoration  of  the  national  life,  natural  even  though 
inconsistent  with  the  basis  upon  which  the  religion 
rested,  for  the  conditions  under  which  the  Jews  were 
forced  to  live  in  the  lands  in  which  they  settled  made 
them  homeless;  and  here  we  strike  the  third  root 
of  Zionism. 

Christianity,  as  we  have  seen,  broke  at  its  founda¬ 
tion  with  Jewish  nationalism.  It  definitely  cut  the 
thread  that  bound  religion  to  the  limitations  inher¬ 
ent  in  associating  religion  with  the  group.  The  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  lies  just  in  this 
circumstance  —  that  he  brought  the  nationalistic  con¬ 
ception  of  religion  as  preached  by  the  Prophets  and 
which  made  religion  solely  a  matter  between  the  in¬ 
dividual  and  his  conscience  more  definitely  and  in 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  35 

an  uncompromising  form  into  the  foreground.  It  is 
an  error  to  suppose  that  the  Jews  rejected  the  re¬ 
ligious  teachings  of  Jesus.  They  could  not  have 
done  so,  for  these  teachings  breathed  the  same  spirit 
as  those  of  their  own  Prophets,  but  the  weight  of 
tradition  and  of  their  established  attitude  of  mind, 
added  to  the  pressure  of  the  religious  conception 
current  about  them,  was  sufficiently  great  to  pre¬ 
vent  them  from  accepting  the  implications  of  the 
position  taken  by  Jesus,  though  even  these  were 
identical  with  those  of  the  Prophets.  The  Jews 
could  not  conceive  of  a  Messiah  who  was  not  also 
a  nationalist.  Jesus  could  not  conceive  of  Judaism 
except  as  detached  from  Zionistic  longings  —  and 
so  the  inevitable  break  took  place.  When  St.  Paul 
came  to  give  the  doctrinal  setting  to  the  teachings 
of  Jesus  and  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  his  life 
with  its  tragic  end,  he  laid  the  chief  emphasis  on 
the  salvation  of  the  individual  through  the  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  belief  in  Jesus.  The  sins  of  the  world 
were  washed  away  through  the  blood  of  Jesus  as 
a  vicarious  offering  for  mankind.  Every  in¬ 
dividual  was  offered  the  opportunity  of  securing 
salvation  for  his  soul  by  accepting  Jesus  as  his 
saviour.  The  new  conception  of  religion  gained 


36  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

the  day,  and  Christian  apostles  travelled  into  all 
lands  to  preach  the  new  faith  of  individual  salva¬ 
tion. 

But  strangely  enough  Christianity  itself  suc¬ 
cumbed  to  the  Zionistic  temptation  of  an  alliance 
with  the  old  nationalism,  though  in  a  form  that  at 
first  appeared  to  be  international.  Christianity  be¬ 
came  the  official  religion  of  Rome.  A  union  was 
established  between  the  two  which  led  to  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Church  Universal  as  a  complement 
to  the  ambition  of  the  Roman  Empire  for  universal 
sovereignty.  Rome  and  Christianity  —  a  State 
Universal  and  a  Church  Universal  —  thus  became 
linked  to  each  other.  The  individualism  of  the 
Christian  scheme  of  salvation  was  overshadowed 
by  the  official  recognition  of  Christianity  as  the 
State  religion.  The  Church  usurped  the  place  once 
occupied  by  the  old  Roman  paganism.  Religion 
became  once  more  an  affair  of  the  solidarity  of 
the  group,  and  the  underlying  principle  involved 
was  not  affected  by  the  circumstance  that  the  new 
grouping  aimed  at  universal  jurisdiction.  Largely 
through  the  official  status  given  to  Christianity,  the 
young  and  vigorous  religion  spread  throughout  the 
Roman  Empire,  and  when  that  Empire  broke  up  into 
the  states  out  of  which  eventually  the  present  Eu- 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  37 

ropean  nationalities  were  to  evolve,  the  union  of 
Church  and  State  survived  logically  as  a  legacy  of 
this  indissoluble  link  between  the  State  and  the 
Church  universal.  Church  and  State  are  merely 
different  terms  for  religion  and  nationality;  they 
represent  religion  and  nationality  writ  large. 
Christian  Europe  continued  to  maintain,  as  a  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  past,  that  only  one  who  had  accepted  the 
official  religion  could  be  a  member  of  the  State. 
There  was,  to  be  sure,  an  advance  in  this  respect, 
that  while  the  older  order,  prevailing  in  antiquity, 
prescribed  e.g.  that  only  a  Greek  could  worship 
Greek  gods,  under  the  new  order  the  proposition 
was  turned  around  and  adherence  to  the  Church 
was  made  the  condition  of  citizenship.  Under  the 
new  order  any  one  could  become  a  member  of  the 
official  religious  body,  whereas  Greek  citizenship 
was  limited  to  those  who  were  born  Greeks  or  who 
had  entered  into  the  Greek  body  politic  through 
intermarriage.  Beyond  this  advance,  however, 
there  was  no  difference  between  the  old  and  the  new. 
The  underlying  principle  in  both  was  the  same. 

In  this  way  Christianity  assumed  a  double  aspect 
precisely  as  did  Judaism,  though  each  through  dif¬ 
ferent  circumstances  and  for  different  reasons. 
Under  this  double  aspect  which  bound  citizenship  to 


38  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

a  confession  of  a  certain  faith,  even  though  that 
faith  aimed  to  be  universalistic,  the  Jews  were  neces¬ 
sarily  excluded  from  participation  in  the  political 
life  about  them,  and  became  a  people  without  a 
country;  and  so  strong  is  the  social  instinct  which 
impels  people  to  associate  themselves  with  the  un¬ 
folding  of  political  activities  that  the  Jews,  scat¬ 
tered  throughout  Christian  Europe,  clung  to  their 
nationalistic  hopes  as  the  only  substitute  at  their 
disposal  for  a  real  country.  Man  as  a  social  and 
political  being  cannot  live  without  a  country.'  If 
he  has  no  real  one  he  creates  an  ideal  one.  The 
continued  attachment  of  a  Zionistic  longing  to  Juda¬ 
ism,  though  not,  as  we  have  seen,  involved  in  the 
basis  upon  which  the  faith  rested  and  indeed  incon¬ 
sistent  with  such  a  basis,  thus  appears  likewise  as 
a  logical  necessity  —  as  well  as  a  survival  —  result¬ 
ing  from  the  conditions  under  which  the  Jews  by 
the  exclusiveness  of  the  States  organized  on  a  basis 
of  union  between  Church  and  State  were  compelled 
to  live. 

Here,  then,  is  the  third  root  of  Zionism,  the  ex¬ 
clusion  of  the  Jews  for  so  many  centuries  from 
participation  in  the  political  life  that  hummed 
around  them.  The  situation  was  most  humiliating: 

o 

for  the  steadily  increasing  numbers  of  Jews  in  all 


The  Roots  of  Modern  Zionism  39 

European  countries,  stigmatized  as  they  were  as 
political  outcasts  and  compelled  to  live  in  cramped 
ghettos ;  and  even  in  these  living  prisons  they  were 
exposed  to  the  contumely  of  the  outside  hostile  mob. 
The  moral  degradation  of  the  conditions  under 
which  the  Jews  thus  passed  their  lives  necessarily 
reacted  on  their  character.  While  it  strengthened, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  bond  uniting  those  who  suf¬ 
fered  in  common,  it  created  on  the  other  a  spirit  of 
clannishness,  and  produced  other  faults  which  are 
necessarily  bred  in  such  an  atmosphere.  A  people 
living  in  a  hostile  atmosphere,  obliged  to  be  ever 
on  their  guard  against  attacks  and  at  the  mercy  of 
government  officials  who  in  return  for  bribes  were 
willing  to  grant  favors  that  connived  at  existing 
laws,  naturally  develope  a  phase  of  shrewdness  born 
of  the  instinct  of  self-preservation.  This  in  turn 
engenders  personal  qualities  which  are  not  attrac¬ 
tive  and  breeds  methods  in  business  and  other  deal¬ 
ings  with  their  own  kin  or  with  strangers  that  will 
not  stand  a  severe  ethical  test.  The  defects  to  be 
found  in  the  character  of  the  Russian  Jew,  upon 
which  even  writers  who  harbor  no  prejudices  have 
not  infrequently ,dwelt  —  though  generalizations  al¬ 
ways  embody  only  semi-truths  —  are  precisely  those 
that  are  evolved  among  a  people,  living  in  a  coun- 


40  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

try  in  which  they  have  no  rights.  It  were  a  miracle 
were  it  otherwise.  Sufferings  through  intolerance, 
alternating  with  frightful  persecutions,  thus  served 
to  intensify  the  longing  for  redemption  through 
divine  intervention.  The  Zionistic  hope  became  for 
the  Jews  the  only  rock  to  which  they  could  cling  in 
the  storm  that  raged  about  them  —  the  beacon  light 
that  illumined  the  darkness  of  their  lives.  It  was 
this  hope  alone  that  enabled  them  to  retain  their 
faith  in  a  protecting  Providence  amidst  the  injustice 
of  which  they  were  the  perpetual  victims. 

The  three  roots  of  Zionism  thus  turn  out  to  be: 
the  force  of  sentiment  assuming  an  increasingly 
picturesque  and  romantic  tinge;  the  persistency  in 
Judaism,  as  a  plank  in  its  religious  platform,  of  the 
older  conception  of  religion  as  involving  the  soli¬ 
darity  of  the  group;  and  the  combination  between 
Christianity  and  nationalism  surviving  until  the 
threshold  of  the  new  era  in  the  organization  of  the 
European  States,  and  which,  excluding  the  Jews 
from  citizenship  and  submitting  them  to  all  manner 
of  suffering  and  persecution,  served  to  maintain 
among  Jews  the  Zionistic  longing  as  the  only  means 
of  satisfying  the  need  of  the  individual  to  belong  to 
some  country. 


Ill 


THE  NEW  ERA  AND  REFORMED  JUDAISM 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  show  how  incongruous 
political  Zionism  is  with  the  new  era  that  began  at 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  marked  by  such 
events  as  our  own  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  French  Revolution.  These  were  symptoms  of 
the  approaching  end  of  the  epoch  marked  by  the 
union  of  Church  and  State.  Christianity  was  to 
free  itself  from  continued  attachment  to  the  idea 
of  nationality,  which  tied  it  officially  to  a  state. 
The  divorce  between  Church  and  State  which  was 
thus  brought  about  was  merely  one  consequence  of 
the  many  changes  wrought  by  the  new  order  that 
was  setting  in.  Religious  freedom  for  the  in¬ 
dividual  which  was  involved  in  this  divorce  was  a 
specific  application  of  the  general  principle  which 
demanded  freedom  of  mind  as  well  as  of  con¬ 
science;  and  equally  bound  up  with  the  new  order 
was  the  ideal  of  political  freedom  that  proclaimed 
the  sovereignty  of  the  popular  will,  and  the  inherent 

4i 


42  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

right  of  nations  to  govern  themselves,  instead  of 
bearing  a  yoke  imposed  upon  them. 

The  force  of  the  new  order  was  irresistible, 
though  the  movement  for  political  and  religious 
freedom  proceeded  more  rapidly  in  some  countries 
than  in  others.  Our  own  land  took  the  lead  and 
furnished  Europe  with  an  example  of  states  band¬ 
ing  themselves  together  to  form  a  union  with  the 
recognition  of  a  complete  divorce  between  Church 
and  State.  The  federation  thus  formed  welcomed 
to  citizenship  all  who  were  ready  to  be  loyal  to  the 
principles  of  the  Republic.  France  followed,  though 
not  without  some  reactionary  movements  which  in 
the  end  failed.  England  and  Holland,  though 
formally  still  recognizing  an  established  Church, 
threw  down  the  barriers  excluding  non-conform¬ 
ists  from  citizenship,  and  even  Austria  and  Ger¬ 
many,  though  remaining  autocratic  in  their  form 
of  government,  were  forced  to  make  concessions  to 
the  onrush  of  the  democratic  spirit.  As  a  result 
of  the  process  of  political  emancipation  which,  be¬ 
ginning  early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  extended 
well  into  the  last  quarter,  the  Jews  in  all  these 
countries  as  well  as  in  Greece  and  Italy  and  in  the 
Balkan  States  with  the  exception  of  Roumania, 
were  gradually  granted  full  rights  of  citizenship; 


The  New  Era  and  Reformed  Judaism  43 

and  as  they  entered  upon  their  new  privileges  we 
find  among  them  a  corresponding  process,  more 
rapid  in  some  countries  than  in  others,  but  every¬ 
where  proceeding  steadily,  of  assimilation  on  their 
part  to  the  new  political  and  social  conditions  thus 
created.  Since  their  political  emancipation  the  Jews 
have  entered  with  zest  into  the  political  life  of  the 
countries  in  which  they  live,  showing  a  patriotic 
zeal  and  devotion  to  the  welfare  of  what  now  be¬ 
came  their  country,  which  more  than  justified  the 
removal  of  the  civic  disabilities  under  which  they  la¬ 
bored  and  suffered  for  so  many,  many  centuries.  By 
that  same  force  of  logic  which  had  led  them  to  look 
to  Palestine  as  the  only  land  which  one  day  they 
would  be  able  to  call  their  country,  they  now  lost 
the  consciousness  of  being  a  separate  political  unit 
by  gaining  as  their  own  the  land  in  which  they  had 
cast  their  lot.  That  social  instinct  in  man  which 
makes  for  political  organization  found  its  natural 
expression,  and  with  this  the  one  root  of  Zionism 
fell  away  for  all  Jews  living  in  lands  that  had 
granted  them  the  same  privileges  and  rights  of 
citizenship  as  their  fellows. 

Accompanying  the  political  emancipation  of  Jews 
there  arose  a  movement  within  the  fold  to  adapt  the 
external  character  of  Judaism  to  the  new  conditions. 


44  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

The  era  of  Reformed  Judaism  as  the  movement 
came  to  be  called,  set  in  —  inevitably  so.  We  err 
completely  in  looking  at  the  movement  as  a  destruc¬ 
tive  one;  it  is  essentially  constructive.  Its  main 
aim  is  the  adaptation  of  the  old  religion  to  the  new 
age,  which  affected  not  only  the  political  and  social 
life  of  the  Jews,  but  also  brought  about  through 
progress  in  research  and  through  discoveries  more 
particularly  in  the  realm  of  natural  science  an  en¬ 
tirely  new  and  changed  attitude  towards  life  and 
towards  man’s  relations  to  the  universe.  Jews  be¬ 
came  affected  by  the  spirit  of  the  age  precisely  and 
to  the  same  degree  as  were  their  fellows  in  the 
Christian  Church.  All  the  sects  of  Christianity 
have  during  the  past  century  felt  the  need  to  set 
their  house  in  order,  to  meet  the  results  gleaned  in 
the  fields  of  geology  and  biology,  which  revealed 
the  great  age  of  the  world  and  an  order  in  the  evo¬ 
lution  of  life  on  this  planet  entirely  different  from 
the  view  which  had  for  so  long  been  traditionally 
accepted. 

The  historical  and  critical  survey  of  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament  swept  away  likewise  established 
traditions  regarding  the  origin  of  Biblical  books  and 
even  regarding  their  character.  Nor  was  the  funda¬ 
mental  doctrine  on  which  Judaism  and  Christianity 


The  New  Era  and  Reformed  Judaism  45 

rested,  as  well  as  Islam,  permitted  to  escape  the  im¬ 
plications  involved  in  the  new  scientific  attitude  to¬ 
wards  the  universe  and  towards  the  position  of  man 
in  nature.  The  Reform  movement  in  Judaism  thus 
had  a  double  character  imposed  upon  it.  On  the 
one  hand  established  rites  and  ceremonies,  which 
were  an  inheritance  of  a  religion  originating  in  an 
ancient  Oriental  environment,  no  longer  made  their 
appeal  to  Western  Jews  imbued  with  Western  ideals 
and  the  Western  spirit;  and  on  the  other  it  had  to 
reinterpret  the  doctrines  of  the  ancestral  religion 
in  accord  with  the  postulates  of  modern  thought, 
and  more  particularly  to  bring  the  beliefs  into  line 
with  the  conditions  of  life  upon  which  the  Jews  had 
entered.1 

The  reformation  in  Judaism  did  not,  as  hap¬ 
pened  in  Christianity,  bring  about  a  sharp  break 
between  those  who  aimed  to  give  to  the  old  re¬ 
ligion  a  new  form,  and  those  who  clung  tenaciously 
to  time-honored  rites  and  customs,  but  those  who  cut 
loose  from  the  moorings  of  tradition  moved  ever 
further  away  from  their  orthodox  brethren  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  doctrines  and  aspirations  of 
Judaism,  until  to-day  the  extreme  left  wing  accepts 

1  See  for  details  Philipson,  Reform  Movement  in  Judaism 
(Macmillan,  New  York,  1907). 


46  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

without  reservation  the  results  of  the  historical  criti¬ 
cism  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  postulates  from 
the  discoveries  in  the  realm  of  natural  science  which 
have  so  materially  altered  fundamental  conceptions 
in  the  sphere  of  religion.  The  ethical  ideals  of  the 
Hebrew  Prophets  have  been  moved  into  the  fore¬ 
ground  by  Reformed  Judaism,  and  this  has  not 
been  without  its  effect  also  on  the  orthodox  wing, 
which  was  forced  to  make  some  concessions  to  the 
spirit  of  the  age  in  order  to  maintain  its  hold  upon 
its  adherents. 

Leaving  aside  aspects  of  Reformed  Judaism  which 
do  not  concern  us  here,  the  most  important  under¬ 
current  to  be  detected  beneath  the  external  changes 
in  forms  and  rites  is  the  struggle  to  throw  off  the 
traces  of  the  older  view  of  religion  which  interprets 
man’s  religious  aspirations  in  terms  of  nationality, 
and  which,  as  pointed  out,  Judaism  through  stress  of 
circumstances  carried  with  it  in  its  winding  course 
through  the  ages.  The  Zionistic  doctrine  as  part 
of  the  religion  lost  its  raison  d'etre  when  the  Jews 
became  citizens  of  the  country  in  which  they  had 
settled.  The  social  instinct  which  impels  a  man 
to  have  one  country  also  prevents  him  from  having 
more  than  one.  The  essence  of  Reformed  Juda¬ 
ism,  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  a  student  of 


The  New  Era  and  Reformed  Judaism  47 

history,  lies  precisely  here,  that  it  freed  Judaism 
and  the  Jews  from  the  double  aspect  of  being  bound 
both  by  a  religious  and  a  political  tie.  Reformed 
Judaism  logically  involved  removing  from  the  re¬ 
ligion  all  Zionistic  aspects,  which  we  have  seen,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  had  no  place  in  the  new  concep¬ 
tion  of  religion  for  which  both  Judaism  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  from  the  beginning  stood,  but  which  were 
retained  in  both  through  a  special  series  of  circum¬ 
stances.  The  separation  of  Church  and  State  in 
countries  that  had  hitherto  been  Christian  is  paral¬ 
leled  by  the  complete  divorce  between  religion  and 
nationality  in  Reformed  Judaism.  The  one  step 
necessarily  entailed  the  other.  Reformed  Judaism 
viewed  in  this  light  as  the  expression  of  the  spirit 
of  the  age  thus  cut  away  the  second  root  of  Zionism. 
Once  more  the  thread  between  religion  and  nation¬ 
ality  was  snapped.  Judaism  was  brought  into  con¬ 
sistent  agreement  with  its  fundamental  principle  of 
a  faith  which,  breaking  all  national  and  racial  bar¬ 
riers,  proclaimed  religion  to  be  the  regulation  of 
the  life  of  the  individual  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience,  with  the  religion  itself  based 
upon  a  belief  in  a  Providence  whose  care  was  ex¬ 
tended  over  all  mankind.  The  old  doctrine  of  a 
chosen  people,  in  so  far  as  it  survived  into  the  new 


48  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

era,  was  thus  given  a  different  interpretation. 
From  having  been  a  special  privilege  accorded 
them  by  a  tribal  deity,  it  became  a  solemn  obligation, 
imposed  by  their  historical  position,  to  spread  the 
doctrine  of  divine  unity  in  the  government  of  the 
universe  and  to  exemplify  the  tenets  of  their  re¬ 
ligion  by  their  conduct  in  life.  There  remains, 
then,  of  the  three  roots  of  Zionism  which  we  above 
discussed  only  one,  the  force  of  the  time-honored 
sentiment  attaching  itself  to  the  memory  of  distant 
days  when  the  Jews  were  a  nation  living  in  the  land 
which  they  had  conquered  for  themselves, 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning.” 

Two  main  objections  to  this  sentiment  when  the 
attempt  is  made  to  convert  it  into  action  are,  in 
the  first  place,  that  it  misinterprets  the  trend  of  the 
history  of  the  Jews  during  the  past  2000  years  and 
secondly,  that  it  ignores  also  the  changes  that  have 
come  over  Palestine  itself  during  this  period.  Be¬ 
fore,  however,  taking  up  these  objections,  which 
may  be  called  fundamental  to  the  endeavor  to  con¬ 
vert  the  Zionistic  sentiment,  however  impressive, 
into  a  political  movement,  we  must  face  the  question 
which  will  be  naturally  raised  at  this  point,  why 


The  New  Era  and  Reformed  Judaism  49 

did  a  strong  Zionistic  movement  set  in  a  generation 
ago,  just  at  the  time  when  the  process  involving  the 
removal  of  the  two  other  roots,  had  made  such 
progress  and,  furthermore,  why  has  modern  Zion¬ 
ism  taken  on  such  a  decided  political  color  which 
gives  to  it  all  the  appearance  of  a  revival  of  a  na¬ 
tionalistic  sentiment  among  the  Jews? 


IV 


JEWISH  SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS  AND  ANTI-SEMITISM 

Naturally,  all  that  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the 
removal  of  the  two  roots  of  Zionism  through  the 
trend  of  events  which  set  in  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  definite  separation  of  re¬ 
ligion  from  nationality  in  Reformed  Judaism  on 
the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  recognition  of 
Jews  as  fullfledged  citizens  in  all  countries  organ¬ 
ized  on  a  democratic  and  liberal  basis,  applies  only 
to  those  countries  in  which  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State  has  practically  been  accomplished  and  all 
political  distinctions  among  the  classes  of  inhabi¬ 
tants  removed.  In  lands  like  Russia  and  Roumania, 
the  three  roots  of  Zionism  still  exert  their  full  force. 
It  was,  therefore,  natural  for  a  Zionistic  movement 
to  originate  in  Russia  despite  the  advent  of  the  new 
era,  and  it  is  significant  that  even  at  the  present 
time  the  movement  gathers  its  main  strength  from 
the  adherence  of  those  Jews  who  have  either  di¬ 
rectly  experienced,  in  Russia  and  Roumania,  the 

50 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  5 1 

martyrdom  of  being  political  outcasts  and  of  being 
victims  of  persecution,  or  who  though  escaping  to 
lands  of  freedom  are  weighed  down  by  their  recol¬ 
lections  and  at  the  same  time  stirred  by  a  natural 
sympathy  for  the  millions  of  their  less  fortunate 
brethren  who  still  languish  in  a  condition  which 
represents  a  modern  equivalent  to  the  ancient  Egyp¬ 
tian  bondage.  Bearing  in  mind  that  Russian  and 
Roumanian  Jews  together,  form  one  half  of  the 
fifteen  million  Jews  in  the  world,  it  is  not  surprising 
to  find  that  an  effort  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of 
so  many  millions  should  secure  a  large  adherence 
among  Russian  and  Roumanian  Jews  living  out¬ 
side  of  these  countries.  Modern  Zionism  at  its  in¬ 
ception  was  distinctly  an  outcome  of  conditions  pre¬ 
vailing  in  Russia  and  Roumania.  It  was  because 
the  Jews  in  these  lands  had  no  country  that  Zionis nj 
arose  to  meet  man’s  social  need  to  belong  to  some 
country.  Zionism  in  its  modern  aspects  as  it  took 
shape  in  Russia  in  the  8o’s  of  the  preceding  century 
was  also  an  expression  of  intellectual  stirrings. 
Curiously  enough,  while  Russia  is  the  stronghold  of 
Jewish  orthodoxy,  due  in  part  at  least  to  the  back¬ 
ward  state  of  political  life  in  that  country,  it  is  also 
the  center  of  a  remarkably  advanced  intelleetualism 
among  large  bodies  of  Jews  who  have,  despite  ad- 


52  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

verse  circumstances,  emancipated  themselves  from 
orthodox  surroundings  and  have  experienced  the 
stimulating  contact  with  the  new  scientific  spirit  of 
the  age,  as  well  as  the  movement  for  freer  political 
life  that  culminated,  after  a  long  struggle,  in  our 
own  days  in  the  recent  Russian  revolution.  Be¬ 
cause  of  this  intellectualism  in  conjunction  with 
their  religious  emancipation,  these  Russian  Jews 
have  felt  the  humiliation  to  which  they  have  been 
subjected  all  the  more  keenly.  Excluded  practically 
from  all  direct  participation  in  both  intellectual  and 
political  activities  —  barring  exceptional  instances 
—  they  became  sharply  self-conscious  of  the  stigma 
attaching  to  them  as  Jews,  irrespective  of  the  fact 
that  they  had  in  most  cases  thrown  off  all  connection 
with  the  ancestral  religion. 

Seeking  for  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  de¬ 
spite  all  efforts  on  their  part  to  become  part  and 
parcel  of  the  native  population  they  were  neverthe¬ 
less  regarded  as  aliens,  they  found  a  justification 
for  their  self-consciousness  in  the  supposition  that 
they  were  denied  the  rights  of  citizenship  and 
treated  as  political  outcasts,  because  they  repre¬ 
sented  a  distinct  nationality,  foreign  to  the  body 
politic  about  them. 

This  same  self-consciousness  explains  the  spread 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness 


53 


of  the  Zionistic  sentiment  to  Germany  and  Austria 
in  which  countries  it  began  to  take  strong  hold  in 
the  closing  decade  of  the  last  century.  Here  it 
was  an  anti-Semitic  outbreak  which  brought  about 
a  recrudescence  of  Jewish  self-consciousness. 
Theodor  Herzl,  who  became  the  founder  and 
leader  of  political  Zionism,  was  himself  led  to  his 
position  by  the  reaction  on  himself  of  the  anti- 
Semitic  movement.  It  was  this  movement  which 
made  him,  the  once  prominent  journalist  of  Vienna, 
without  any  affiliations  with  the  religion  of  his 
fathers,  conscious  of  the  isolated  position  occupied 
by  the  Jews  in  countries  like  Germany  and  Austria, 
despite  the  improvement  in  their  political  status. 
He  likewise  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  Jews 
were  regarded  as  a  separate  entity,  not  because  of 
their  religion  but  in  spite  of  it.  It  was  not  their 
religion  that  stamped  the  Jews  as  a  compact  body, 
but  the  fact  that  they  belonged  to  a  separate  nation¬ 
ality.  The  interpretation  that  was  thus  given  to  the 
anti-Semitic  movement  played  directly  into  the 
hands  of  the  opponents  of  the  Jews  whose  hostility, 
it  may  be  said  in  passing,  was  not  worthy  of  so  ex¬ 
alted  an  interpretation. 

Jewish  self-consciousness  thus  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  the  solution  proposed  by  Herzl  and  his  followers 


54  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

for  the  Jewish  Question.  With  a  frank  confes¬ 
sion  as  his  starting-point  that  the  Jews  were  a  dis¬ 
tinct  nationality,  Herzl  maintained  that  the  Jews 
could  only  regain  the  respect  and  esteem  of  the 
world  by  an  effort  to  re-establish  themselves  as  a 
national  group.  Hence  the  “  Jewish  State  ”  which 
loomed  up  in  Herzl’s  mind  as  a  way  out  of  the  bewil¬ 
dering  maze.1  By  organizing  a  Jewish  State  the 
Jews  would  force  the  most  powerful  weapon  of  their 
enemies  out  of  their  hands,  and  it  was  further  main¬ 
tained  that  with  a  national  organization  and  a  na¬ 
tional  center  the  Jews  would  be  in  a  position  to  ex¬ 
ercise  pressure,  backed  by  diplomatic  prestige,  to  se¬ 
cure  protection  for  Jews  living  outside  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  Jewish  State.  Herzl  did  not  have  in  mind 
at  first  that  this  State  should  necessarily  be  estab¬ 
lished  in  Palestine,  but  when  the  Jewish  Congress 
called  by  him  met  in  Basel  in  1897,  the  Zionistic 
sentiment  was  so  strong  and  aroused  such  enthu¬ 
siasm  among  the  delegates  that  there  was  no  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  strength  of  the  movement  centering  in 
the  romantic  attitude  towards  the  old  homeland. 
When  at  a  subsequent  Congress  a  plan  for  the  pos¬ 
sible  establishment  of  the  Jewish  State  outside  of 
Palestine  was  broached,  the  opposition  to  it  was  so 
1  See  above,  p.  9  et  seq. 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  55 

vigorous  as  almost  to  cause  a  break;  and  later  the 
break  did  come.1 

The  movement,  thus  resting  on  a  plane  of  self- 
consciousness  of  recent  origin  and  on  a  sentiment  of 
a  time-honored  character,  spread  to  other  countries 
because  prejudice  towards  Jews,  though  in  a  milder 
form,  showed  itself  also  in  such  lands  as  France 
and  to  some  extent  in  England  as  well  as  in  our 
own  country.  Many  Jews  in  these  countries  were 
led  to  accept  the  Zionistic  contention  that  the  Jews 
are  a  nation,  because  they  too  came  to  ascribe  the 
feeling  towards  them  as  Jews  to  this  fact,  though 
these  newly  fledged  Zionists  contradicted  their  own 
position  by  virtue  of  their  complete  political  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  only  country  which  they  regarded 
as  their  own.  It  ought  to  be  said  also  that  by  far 
the  majority  of  those  who  in  England  and  the 
United  States  and  so  far  as  one  can  judge  also  in 
France  (where  the  movement  appears  to  be  weak¬ 
est)  have  joined  the  ranks  of  political  Zionism  are 
to  be  found  among  the  emigrants  from  Russia  and 
Poland,  who  are  naturally  still  swayed  by  memories 
of  their  former  condition,  or  are  moved  by  sympa¬ 
thy  with  their  fellows  in  accepting  the  political  plank 
in  the  Zionistic  platform  which  declares  the  Jews  to 

1  For  details,  see  Gottheil,  Zionism,  pp.  120-142. 


56  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

be  a  separate  nationality.  I  say  the  majority,  for 
I  am  aware  of  the  fact  that  some  of  the  leaders  of 
Zionism  in  the  United  States  and  in  England  do  not 
fall  within  this  category.  Barring  these  leaders  — 
who  are  a  mere  handful  —  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
of  American  and  English  born  Jews  or  of  such  who, 
though  not  natives,  have  lived  long  enough  in  these 
countries  to  have  become  thoroughly  assimilated  to 
prevailing  political  and  social  conditions,  not  five 
per  cent  in  either  country  are  political  Zionists. 
The  movement  thus  retains  most  decidedly  its  char¬ 
acter  as  Russian  in  origin  1  and  is  strengthened  by 
the  reaction  on  the  Jews  of  Germany  and  Austria 
through  the  anti-Semitism  prevailing  in  these  lands, 
which  despite  their  intellectual  position  fell  until 
the  end  of  the  war  within  the  category  of  politically 
backward  countries. 

Now  the  fallacy  in  the  position  of  the  Russian 

1  It  is  only  necessary  to  scan  the  list  of  delegates  to  the 
so-called  American  Jewish  Congress,  which  was  held  in 
Philadelphia  in  December,  1918,  and  the  International  Zion¬ 
ist  Conference  held  in  February,  1919,  in  London,  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  justification  for  this  statement.  It  is  no  reflection  on 
either  conference  that  it  was  composed  in  large  majority  of 
those  who  have  in  recent  years  come  to  the  United  States 
and  England,  but  the  fact  is  significant  that  the  Philadelphia 
meeting  could  not  be  called  a  representative  American  Jewish 
gathering,  nor  the  one  in  London  a  representative  English 
Jewish  gathering, 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  57 

intellectuals  in  making  their  Jewish  self-conscious¬ 
ness  the  starting-point  for  a  political  Zionism,  based 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  feelings  towards  Jews 
was  due  to  their  being  a  separate  people,  is  obvious ; 
and  even  more  obvious  is  the  false  position  in  which 
those  Jews  have  placed  themselves  who  became  po¬ 
litical  Zionists  in  countries  in  which  they  had  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  rights  and  obligations  as  their  fel¬ 
low  citizens,  but  who  were  led  thereto  by  the  influ¬ 
ence,  direct  or  indirect,  of  European  anti-Semitism. 
The  prejudice  existing  against  Jews  in  countries 
like  Germany  and  Austria  and,  though  to  a  less  ex¬ 
tent,  even  in  such  as  are  organized  on  a  purely 
democratic  basis,  is  essentially  social  in  contrast  to 
that  existing  in  former  centuries  when  it  was  dis¬ 
tinctly  religious.  Social  prejudice  is  irritating;  it 
leads  to  self-consciousness,  but  it  is  not  as  serious 
as  we  often  picture  it.  It  would  be,  if  social  preju¬ 
dice  against  Jews  were  the  only  phenomenon  of  its 
kind  in  this  world.  There  is  a  strong  social  preju¬ 
dice  against  Catholics  in  many  countries,  particu¬ 
larly  in  such  where  the  population  is  predominat¬ 
ingly  Protestant;  and  there  are  many  other  phases 
of  social  prejudice  in  other  countries  that  might  be 
mentioned,  all  of  which  goes  to  show  that  social 
prejudice  is  so  common  as  to  justify  one  in  regard- 


58  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

ing  it  as  the  “  touch  of  nature  which  makes  the 
whole  world  kin.”  There  are  few,  surprisingly  few 
people,  Jews  or  non-Jews,  who  are  free  from  social 
prejudice.  Most  of  us  have  an  endless  supply  that 
crops  out  on  the  most  unexpected  occasions.  The 
source  of  this  prejudice  is  the  perfectly  human, 
though  not  for  that  reason  justifiable,  feeling  that 
we  like  people  who  are  like  ourselves.  We  resent 
the  intrusion  into  the  social  circle  of  any  one  who  is 
or  seems  to  be  different  from  us.  It  is  conceit  that 
in  the  last  analysis  underlies  social  prejudice,  and  it 
is  perhaps  a  sad  reflection  that  as  long  as  human  na¬ 
ture  does  not  change,  social  prejudice  in  some  form, 
directed  at  those  different  from  ourselves,  will  con¬ 
tinue  to  exist.  At  the  same  time  it  is  some  com¬ 
fort  to  realize  that  social  prejudices  have  a  tendency 
to  lose  their  sting  as  people  of  different  habits  and 
different  ways  of  looking  at  things,  and,  if  you 
please,  different  ways  of  conducting  themselves, 
are  led  by  force  of  circumstances  to  intermingle.  A 
great  war,  such  as  the  one  we  have  just  passed 
through,  has  an  exhilarating  influence  in  making 
us  more  open-minded,  more  democratic  and  less 
clannish.  The  various  elements  of  a  nation  are 
forced  into  closer  contact  through  the  unifying  ef¬ 
fect  of  a  war,  with  the  inevitable  result  of  our  get- 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  59 

ting  rid  of  at  least  some  of  our  prejudices,  though 
we  need  not  worry  lest  we  shed  them  all.  Now  it 
is  natural  that  this  prejudice  should  be  stronger  in 
countries  like  Russia  and  Roumania,  where  the  Jews, 
deprived  of  political  rights,  have  always  been  looked 
upon  as  a  separate  and  different  group.  It  is  one 
of  the  natural,  though  unfortunate,  results  of  the 
forced  isolation  from  their  fellow  beings  in  which 
Jews  in  these  countries  have  for  centuries  lived,  that 
they  have  become  so  different  in  their  ways  from 
the  surrounding  population.  The  greater  the  ex¬ 
ternal  differences  separating  the  group  from  its 
surroundings,  the  stronger  the  social  prejudice  en¬ 
gendered  on  both  sides  —  with  this  difference,  to  be 
sure,  that  the  stronger  group  shows  its  hostility 
without  any  disguise  and  frequently  in  a  most  brutal 
manner,  whereas  the  weaker  must  hide  its  feelings 
as  best  it  can. 

One  may  also  observe  a  gradual  diminution  of 
this  kind  of  prejudice  towards  Jews  in  those  lands 
in  which  they  have  been  admitted  to  full  political 
life.  Even  in  Germany  and  Austria  anti-Semitism 
did  not  lead  to  such  violent  outbreaks  as  in  Russia 
and  Roumania,  but  manifested  itself  chiefly  in  petty 
annoyances,  in  a  polemic  of  printers  ink  in  the 
form  of  the  brochure,  of  which  the  Germans  are  so 


60  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

fond.  The  chief  result  of  anti-Semitism  was  to 
produce  a  deluge  of  literature,  most  of  which  had 
an  ephemeral  vogue.  It  also  had  the  effect  of  hin¬ 
dering  the  Jews  in  their  careers,  particularly  those 
who  had  chosen  the  professions,  but  it  was  after 
all  mild  as  compared  to  the  manifestations  in  lands 
where  the  Jews  were  still  excluded  from  the  en¬ 
joyment  of  civic  rights.  As  we  pass  to  democratic 
countries,  the  social  character  of  the  prejudice  be¬ 
comes  more  clearly  manifest,  and  assumes  the  still 
more  harmless  though  annoying  form  of  exclusion 
from  summer  hotels  and  from  social  clubs. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  warrant,  however,  for 
assuming  that  the  prejudice  against  Jews  in  any 
country  is  due  to  their  being  a  separate  nationality. 
The  political  Zionists  cannot  lay  this  flattering  unc¬ 
tion  to  their  souls.  They  are  guilty  of  self-decep¬ 
tion  in  offering  such  an  explanation.  For  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  anti-Semitism,  as  one  of  the 
many  prejudices  of  which  the  world  is  full  and 
which  has  been  a  factor  in  making  converts  to  Zion¬ 
ism  in  different  countries,  has  an  old,  though  not 
an  honorable,  lineage.  It  may  be  traced  back  to  the 
days  of  Pharaoh  before  the  Jews  were  a  nation,  and 
it  crops  out  in  Roman  days  after  they  had  ceased  to 
be  one.  The  main  difference  between  the  old  and 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  61 

the  new  variety  lies  in  the  reasons  assigned  for  its 
existence  by  those  who  feel  it  incumbent  to  explain 
their  attitude.  The  Bible  tells  us  that  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  did  not  like  the  Hebrews  because  they  were 
shepherds.  The  Egyptians  did  not  like  to  sit  down 
at  the  same  table  with  these  shepherds ;  they  did  not 
belong  to  the  same  social  set.  The  Hebrews  prob¬ 
ably  reciprocated  this  feeling  and  looked  upon  the 
Egyptians,  though  representatives  of  a  higher  cul¬ 
ture,  as  degenerates.  The  modern  anti-Semite 
seeks  to  justify  his  social  prejudice  by  a  pseudo¬ 
political  philosophy  regarding  race  purity,  backed, 
perhaps,  by  a  recollection  that  he  had  met  some 
Jews  whom  he  did  not  like,  or  who  perhaps  did  not 
like  him.  One  is  reminded  of  the  remark  attributed 
to  the  late  King  Edward  who,  as  Prince  of  Wales, 
had  invited  his  fashionable  tailor  to  a  public  re¬ 
ception.  The  Prince  asked  the  tailor  how  he  was 
enjoying  himself,  to  which  the  latter  replied :  “  It’s 

a  rather  mixed  company,  Your  Royal  Highness.” 
“  Well,”  said  the  Prince,  “  we  cannot  all  be  tailors.” 
The  Romans  were  quite  undiscriminating  in  their 
social  prejudices,  and  included  the  Christians  with 
the  Jews.  They  looked  upon  both  as  dangerous 
innovators  —  religious  Bolsheviki  —  because  neither 
Jews  nor  Christians  would  recognize  the  Roman 


6 2  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

gods.  In  fact,  Roman  writers  speak  of  Jews  and 
Christians  as  atheists,  because  they  did  not  believe 
in  Jupiter. 

Now  at  first  sight  it  might  seem  that  this  prejudice 
was  in  reality  religious,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
religious  opposition  to  the  Jews  did  not  arise  until 
Christianity  had  become  part  and  parcel  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  Under  the  old  conception  of  re¬ 
ligion  as  above  set  forth  and  which  made  religion 
an  affair  of  the  group,  the  one  who  was  not  of  the 
same  religion  was  excluded  in  a  social  sense. 
Otherwise,  the  attitude  towards  him  was  one  of  in¬ 
difference.  There  was  no  religious  intolerance  un¬ 
der  the  conditions  prevailing  in  antiquity,  because 
it  was  regarded  as  perfectly  natural  that  every 
country  should  have  its  own  gods,  its  own  way  of 
worship  and  its  own  way  of  looking  at  life.  When, 
however,  Christianity  set  up  its  ideal  of  a  single 
church  of  universal  sway  as  a  complement  to  the 
political  theory  upon  which  the  Roman  Empire 
rested,  the  corollary  necessarily  followed  that  those 
who  were  outside  of  Christianity  were  heretics  or 
infidels.  The  feeling  against  those  who  despite  all 
efforts  continued  to  remain  outside  of  the  official 
recognized  religion,  naturally  assumed  a  more  posi¬ 
tively  hostile  character.  Christianity  became  em- 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  63 

phatically  intolerant  of  those  who  did  not  accept 
the  Christian  faith.  Christian  states  looked  upon 
them  as  stiff-necked,  stubborn,  hopelessly  blind, 
and  they  treated  them  accordingly.  When  persua¬ 
sion  failed  persecution  set  in,  and  when  persecution 
seemed  ineffective  they  burnt  the  Jews,  as  they  exe¬ 
cuted  the  heretics  in  their  own  ranks.  But  even 
during  the  Middle  Ages  when  the  religious  feelings 
towards  Jews  as  towards  others  who  were  regarded 
as  heretics  ran  so  high,  there  was  always  an  element 
of  social  prejudice  involved,  and  this  element  re¬ 
mained  after  the  more  liberalizing  movement  of 
modern  times  set  in. 

Now  at  bottom  what  does  all  this  social  prejudice 
amount  to  except  that  we  do  not  like  people  who  are 
different  from  us,  who  do  not  believe  the  same 
things;  do  not  speak  the  same  language;  do  not 
dress  in  the  same  way;  who  have  different  kinds  of 
names,  different  looks,  differently-shaped  heads  or 
noses,  who  have  not  our  manners,  who  act  differ¬ 
ently?  Social  prejudice  may  also  arise  from  fear 
of  competition,  but  whatever  its  cause  or  its  nature, 
it  cannot  be  overcome  by  succumbing  to  it,  and  still 
less  by  admitting  its  justification,  as  the  Zionists 
unwittingly  do  in  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  the 
Jews  are  a  separate  substance  in  the  body  politic  in 


6\  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

which  they  live.  It  is  starting  at  the  wrong  end 
to  take  as  one’s  guide  for  direction  the  outburst  of 
those  whose  anti-Semitism  is  merely  an  index  of  a 
general  reactionary  frame  of  mind.  It  is  not  acci¬ 
dental  that  Treitschke,  the  soul  of  the  anti-Semitic 
movement  in  Germany,  was  also  the  one  who  inter¬ 
preted  the  nationalistic  trend  of  Germany  in  the 
narrowest  spirit,  the  spirit  which  led  to  the  pre¬ 
dominance  of  Prussia  and  Prussian  militarism  and 
eventually  brought  with  it  the  sad  downfall  of  what 
was  once  a  great  nation  —  and  what,  we  all  hope, 
may  again  become  a  nation  worthy  of  the  traditions 
which  it  had  established  before  entering  upon  a 
wrong  path.  Anti-Semitism  because  it  was  reac¬ 
tionary  and  placed  the  over-emphasis  on  nationality, 
was  one  of  the  factors  that  led  to  the  moral  collapse 
of  Germany.  In  other  countries,  like  Austria  and 
France,  those  who  took  up  the  cry  of  anti-Semitism 
were  likewise  those  who  were  found  on  the  side  of 
the  reactionaries,  in  league  with  the  forces  opposed 
to  the  spirit  of  the  age  which  ever  since  the  days  of 
Napoleon  had  been  moving  towards  political  liberal¬ 
ism.  Surely  in  view  of  all  this  it  is  the  height  of  ab¬ 
surdity  to  take  the  existence  of  social,  or,  if  you 
choose,  even  racial  prejudice  —  though  it  assumes 
the  proportions  of  a  movement  —  as  a  point  of  de- 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  65 

parture  for  the  interpretation  of  the  position  of  the 
Jews  in  the  world  that  involves,  among  other  things, 
as  will  presently  be  shown,  a  misreading  of  their 
entire  history  since  the  time  that  they  ceased  to  be 
a  nation  in  any  real  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  in¬ 
deed  one  of  the  main  charges  to  be  brought  against 
the  political  Zionists  that  they  entirely  neglect  this 
historical  factor  —  in  many  cases,  I  believe,  through 
ignorance —  in  setting  up  their  claim  that  the  Jews, 
despite  the  evidence  to  the  contrary,  are  still  a  na¬ 
tion,  and  that  the  reconstitution  of  them  as  a  na¬ 
tional  entity  furnishes  the  only  logical  solution  for 
what  is  called  the  “  Jewish  Question.” 

The  traits  possessed  by  modern  Jews,  both  the 
good  and  the  bad  ones,  so  far  as  they  present  any 
peculiarities  or  characteristics,  are  due  to  the  factor 
which  the  late  James  Darmesteter,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  scholars  of  his  day,  called  “  tradi¬ 
tion,”  the  result  of  living  for  centuries  in  close 
proximity  and  in  imposed  isolation  from  the  outside 
world.1  Common  experiences,  under  conditions 
which  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  in  former  centuries 
meant  common  sufferings,  produce  a  common  out- 

1  See  his  essay  on  “Race  and  Tradition”  in  Selected  Es¬ 
says  of  James  Darmesteter,  translated  from  the  French  by 
Helen  B.  Jastrow  (Boston,  1895),  pp.  155-177. 


66  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

look  on  life.  A  certain  clannishness,  on  the  one 
side,  balanced  by  strength  of  will  on  the  other,  a 
marked  family  attachment,  flanked  by  shrewdness, 
the  fruit  of  suspicion  of  a  hostile  world.  Tradi¬ 
tion  extends  its  influence  even  to  peculiarities  of 
speech  and  to  physical  features,  for  people  who  live 
together  are  apt  to  grow  alike  in  appearance. 
Much,  therefore,  which  passes  current  for  racial 
or  ethnic  traits  in  the  supposed  separate  character 
of  the  Jews  as  a  race  or  nation,  is  due  to  totally 
different  causes,  which  would  produce  the  same  re¬ 
sults  in  the  case  of  any  other  group  obliged  to  live 
under  the  same  surroundings.  In  fact  the  racial 
factor  which  is  involved  in  the  Zionistic  contention 
that  the  Jews  are  a  nation,  has  led  to  considerable 
confusion  in  the  public  mind,  in  conjunction  with 
the  false  view  which  was  current  a  few  decades  ago 
as  to  the  advantages  of  purity  of  race.  Scholars 
now  agree  that  a  pure  race  is  a  fiction.  All  races 
that  have  achieved  anything  are  more  or  less  mixed. 
All  great  civilizations  have  been  produced  by  com¬ 
mingling  of  various  racial  elements  in  the  popula¬ 
tion.  The  Babylonians,  Egyptians,  Greeks  and 
Romans  are  all  mixed  races,  and  so  are  the  modem 
European  nations.  The  Jews  form  no  exception, 
and  even  in  Palestine  it  is  more  than  likely  that  they 


Jewish  Self-Consciousness  67 

mingled  with  others  than  Semites.  It  is  only  neces¬ 
sary  to  regard  the  various  types  among  Jews  at  the 
present  time  to  realize  the  extent  to  which  this  mix¬ 
ture  must  have  proceeded  for  centuries,  despite  the 
unfavorable  circumstances  which  restricted  that  mix¬ 
ture  to  a  point  below  the  normal.  In  fact  there 
are  no  purely  racial  characteristics  to  distinguish 
Jews  from  their  surroundings  in  European  coun¬ 
tries  or  in  this  country,  beyond  those  traits  and  fea¬ 
tures  which  are  due  to  the  result  of  the  factor  which 
I  have  called  “  tradition.” 

But  the  question,  for  all  that,  will  be  asked,  are 
not  the  Jews  a  nation  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  one  during  the  six  centuries  (about  1200  to 
600  b.  c.)  of  their  national  independence  in  Pales¬ 
tine?  Let  us  see. 


V 


NATIONALITY  VERSUS  NATION 

Lord  Bryce  in  an  illuminating  essay  on  “  The  Prin¬ 
ciple  of  Nationality  ”  1  emphasizes  the  distinction 
between  a  nationality  and  a  nation.  The  former  is 
a  term  expressive  of  common  ethnic  descent  of  a 
people,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  ethnos  need  not 
necessarily  be  pure  and  rarely  is.  A  nation,  on  the 
other  hand,  represents  a  political  entity  which  may 
consist  of  a  single  nationality,  but  it  is  also  possible, 

1  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime  (London,  1918),  Chap¬ 
ter  7. 

A  friend,  who  is  a  keen  student  of  current  events,  calls 
my  attention  in  this  connection  to  the  unfortunate  lack  of 
a  suitable  term  to  express  the  modern  idea  of  a  nation  as  a 
political  unit,  as  against  the  older  view  of  an  ethnic  unit. 
After  all,  nation  and  nationality  are  really  synonymous  terms, 
and  it  is  only  by  an  artificial  process  that  we  can  differenti¬ 
ate  between  the  two  as  Lord  Bryce  has  done.  Inasmuch, 
however,  as  no  special  term  exists  to  express  a  political  unit 
independent  of  all  ethnic  factors,  I  am  obliged  to  retain  the 
existing  terminology,  but  will  endeavor  in  every  instance  to 
make  it  clear  that  I  mean  the  political  unit,  which  may  be 
composed  of  one  nationality  or  of  various  nationalities  or  of 
many  nationalities. 


68 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  69 

and  under  modern  conditions  more  common,  for 
several  nationalities  to  be  represented  in  the  nation. 
A  single  common  nationality  forms  the  starting- 
point  for  the  development  of  a  State,  but  it  is  not 
the  goal  and  certainly  does  not  represent  the  high¬ 
est  conception  of  political  life.  Great  Britain  forms 
one  nation,  but  it  is  composed  of  three  nationalities, 
English,  Scotch  and  Welsh.  In  the  case  of  Bel¬ 
gium  we  have  a  national  entity  composed  of  two 
nationalities,  Flemish  and  Walloon.  In  Switzer¬ 
land  we  have  a  state  organized  into  a  nation  consist¬ 
ing  of  three  nationalities,  Teutonic,  Gallic  and 
Italic,  combining  to  form  a  single  nation,  while  our 
own  country  is  an  example  of  the  mixture  and  com¬ 
bination  of  many  nationalities  from  all  parts  of  the 
world  to  form  one  American  nation.  Germany, 
France  and  Italy,  on  the  other  hand,  are  nations 
formed  by  a  predominating  single  nationality, 
though  even  in  these  lands,  as  also  in  Poland  and 
Bohemia,  there  is  a  considerable  admixture  of  other 
nationalities,  which  suggests  that  it  may  be  an 
error  in  dealing  with  the  problem  of  the  reconsti¬ 
tution  of  Poland  and  Bohemia,  which  have  large 
admixtures  of  other  nationalities,  particularly  Ger¬ 
man,  to  lay  too  great  a  stress  on  the  factor  of  single 
nationality.  There  ought  to  be  no  such  thing  within 


70  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

a  modern  state  as  the  separation  of  a  population 
into  a  majority  and  a  minority  nationality,  and  cer¬ 
tainly  not  a  segregation  of  that  minority  as  a  sepa¬ 
rate  national  unit.  All  the  elements  of  which  a 
country  is  composed  together  form  the  nation  in  a 
state  organized  on  democratic  principles. 

We  see  in  the  difficulties  that  have  already  arisen 
between  the  rival  claims  of  the  Jugo-Slavs  and  the 
Italians  for  the  domination  of  a  certain  section  of 
the  Dalmatian  Coast,  how  difficult  it  is  in  these  days 
of  close  intercourse  between  countries  to  settle  prob¬ 
lems  of  sovereignty  on  the  basis  of  nationality  alone. 
The  natural  trend  in  a  democratic  age  is  towards 
mixture  of  nationalities  to  form  a  nation. 

Another  danger  involved  in  laying  too  strong  an 
emphasis  on  a  single  nationality  as  the  basis  of 
national  life  is  that  it  engenders  chauvinism  and  false 
patriotism.  France  in  the  past  has  suffered  from 
this  evil  because  of  the  predominating  single  nation¬ 
ality  in  that  country ;  and  modern  Germany  is  a  sig¬ 
nificant  and  disastrous  example  of  a  state  which  col¬ 
lapsed  by  its  over-emphasis  on  the  single  nation¬ 
ality  which  predominates  in  Germany.  It  was  this 
over-emphasis  which  lent  itself  to  the  designs  of  a 
sinister  Pan-Germanic  policy  and  which,  in  turn,  by 
its  chauvinistic  implication  led  to  the  ambition  to 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  71 

force  “  Deutschtum  ”  on  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Over-emphasis  on  nationality  is  largely  responsi¬ 
ble  also,  as  we  have  seen,1  for  the  outbreak  of 
the  anti-Semitic  movement.  “  Deutschland  fiber 
Alles”! —  the  correct  translation  of  which  phrase 
as  placing  everything  German  in  the  minds  of  Ger¬ 
mans  far  above  anything  else  is  quite  as  objection¬ 
able  as  the  ordinary  misinterpretation  of  it  as  though 
it  meant  to  imply  the  domination  of  Germany 
over  everything.  “  Deutschland  iiber  Alles  ”  ought 
to  be  nothing  more  than  “  My  Country  Tis  of 
Thee,”  but  it  involves  by  its  insinuating  phraseology 
precisely  that  over-emphasis  on  nationality  which 
led  to  the  position  reached  by  Treitschke  and  his 
followers,  that  the  German  nation  must  remain  free 
from  the  taint  of  anything  that  was  not  “  Deutsch,” 
that  the  nation  must  remain  a  single  nationality  with 
no  foreign  admixture.  The  Poles  must,  therefore, 
be  forcibly  Germanized.  Everything  Gallic  must 
be  driven  out  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  and  since  accord¬ 
ing  to  this  conception  of  “  Deutschtum,”  the  Jews 
cannot  belong  to  the  German  nationality,  they  must 
be  kept  from  participation  in  the  political  and  public 
life  for  fear  that  their  influence  might  endanger  the 
purity  of  the  German  nationalistic  ideal.  Had  that 
1  Page  64. 


72  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

“  ideal”  been  less  pure,  it  might  have  prevented 
Germany  from  violating  her  treaty  obligations  to 
Belgium  and  from  such  barbarisms  as  the  sinking 
of  the  Lusitania. 

Now  what  is  the  application  of  all  this  to  the 
status  of  the  Jews?  Obviously  that,  in  the  first 
place,  the  Jews  may  be  a  nationality  without  for  that 
reason  being  necessarily  destined  or  impelled  to 
form  a  nation.  They  might,  assuming  that  they 
would  care  to  be  united  as  a  single  group  or  could 
be  so  united,  form  a  nationality  as  part  of  some  na¬ 
tion  itself  composed  of  other  nationalities.  Apply¬ 
ing  this  to  the  situation  in  Palestine,  the  population 
of  which  consists  at  present  of  various  nationalities 
and  indeed,  as  we  shall  see,  of  representatives  of  a 
surprisingly  large  number  of  such  nationalities,  the 
obvious  form  that  the  reconstruction  of  Palestine 
after  the  war  should  take  on  is  the  creation  of  a 
Palestinian  State  based  on  all  the  nationalities 
there  congregated,  and  not  a  Jewish  State  which,  if 
it  means  anything  at  all,  would  place  the  emphasis 
on  a  state  formed  of  a  single  nationality.  As  for 
the  large  bulk  of  Jews  who  will  always  live  outside 
of  Palestine,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  Palestine 
will  not  hold  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  fifteen  mil¬ 
lion  Jews  in  the  world, —  granting  again  that  the 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  73 

Jews  would  wish  to  regard  themselves  as  a  separate 
nationality, —  they  should  naturally  form  an  ele¬ 
ment  in  making  up  the  national  entity  in  each  of  the 
countries  throughout  which  they  are  scattered.  The 
Jews  actually  fulfill  this  function  at  present  in 
Western  European  lands,  as  in  this  country  and 
elsewhere  where  states  are  organized  on  the  basis 
of  democracy,  with  the  recognition  of  the  equal 
rights  of  citizenship  for  all  the  inhabitants.  The 
logic  of  the  situation,  therefore,  suggests  that  the 
remaining  tenth  of  Jews  who,  for  one  reason  or  the 
other,  will  desire  to  settle  in  Palestine,  should  like¬ 
wise  be  one  nationality  among  the  many  at  present 
represented  in  Palestine,  forming  with  the  others  a 
single  political  entity  which  would  constitute  the 
Palestinian  nation. 

Moreover,  the  circumstance  that  the  Jews  once 
formed  a  separate  nation  in  a  state  organized,  as  all 
states  of  antiquity  were,  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
nationality  until  the  days  of  the  Roman  Empire,  is 
no  reason  why  they  should  again  do  so,  even  if  this 
were  possible  or  desirable.  But  are  the  Jews  at 
present  even  a  nationality,  on  the  ground  that  they 
once  were  one  2000  years  ago?  In  any  political 
sense  of  the  word,  certainly  not,  for  apart  from  the 
fact  that  a  nationality  without  any  specific  country 


74  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

to  which  it  belongs  and  without  a  common  language 
is  an  abnormality  amounting  almost  to  a  contradic¬ 
tion  of  terms,  there  is  no  unity  among  Jews  except 
that  represented  by  the  bond  of  a  common  religion 
and  of  a  common  tradition,  the  common  tradition 
remaining  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  no  longer 
are  Jews  in  a  religious  sense. 

Beyond  this  common  tradition  the  Western  Jew 
has  scarcely  anything  that  binds  him  to  the  Jew  of 
Eastern  lands.  He  feels  no  nearer  to  him  than  he 
does  to  other  non-Jewish  Easterners.  Even  among 
the  Jews  of  Western  Europe  it  is  well  known  that 
the  German  Jew,  for  example,  is  not  particularly 
attracted  to  his  Polish  brethren  and  not  infrequently 
shows  his  repugnance  towards  them.  The  common 
impression  that  Jews  everywhere  feel  particularly 
bound  to  one  another  is  entirely  erroneous.1 

To  be  sure  —  and  this  must  be  freely  admitted  — 
the  fact  that  the  Jews  are  scattered  throughout  the 
world  would  not  be  a  decisive  factor  in  determining 
that  they  are  not  a  nationality,  for  Germans,  Ital- 

1  See  further  on  this  subject  Felix  Adler’s  address  on 
“  Nationalism  and  Zionism,”  p.  6,  in  which  he  points  out  the 
results  that  would  follow'  any  attempt  to  bring  together  Jews 
from  various  parts  of  the  world,  who  are  not  congenial  to 
one  another. 


75 


Nationality  Versus  Nation 

ians,  Greeks  and  English  are  likewise  found  in  many 
parts  of  the  world,  but  when,  however,  in  addition 
to  this  we  also  find  that  there  is  no  particular  coun¬ 
try  which,  since  the  loss  of  Palestine,  may  be  re¬ 
garded  as  the  homeland  of  the  Jews,  then  their  dis¬ 
persion  throughout  the  world  does  become  a  decid¬ 
ing  factor  in  answering  the  question  whether  the 
Jews  are  at  present  a  nationality  in  the  negative. 
The  situation  may,  therefore,  be  summed  up  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  The  Jews  ceased  to  be  a  nation  with  the  com¬ 
plete  eclipse  of  the  last  semblance  of  their  national 
independence ; 1  and  they  ceased  to  be  a  nation¬ 
ality  when  the  movement  of  emigration  from  Pales¬ 
tine  (which  began  as  far  back  as  the  conquest  of  the 
country  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  the  close  of  the  sixth 
century  before  this  era)  had,  by  the  fifth  century  of 
our  era,  left  only  a  small  and  ever-decreasing  minor¬ 
ity  in  what  was  once  the  Jewish  homeland.  Egypt, 
Rome,  Morocco,  Spain,  the  Crimea,  Germany,  Hol¬ 
land,  Poland,  Russia  became  in  turn  the  real  centers 
for  the  Jews,  insofar  as  we  can  speak  of  any  center 
for  a  dispersed  people.  At  the  present  time  there 
are  at  least  five  such  centers,  Russia,  Poland,  Ger¬ 
many,  England  and  the  United  States.  Therefore, 

1  In  the  year  135  a.  d.  See  above,  p.  32. 


7 6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

even  if  Palestine  should  in  the  future  become  a  cen¬ 
ter,  it  would  be  only  one  of  many  centers,  and  not 

the  center. 

But,  it  may  be  objected,  is  not  the  circumstance 
that  Judaism,  though  it  marked  theoretically  the 
cutting  loose  of  religion  from  nationality  and  laid 
the  emphasis  on  religion  as  the  affair  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  and  not  of  the  group,  because  it  remained 
confined  to  a  single  group  and  continued  to  present 
a  double  aspect  to  such  an  extent  that  the  hope  for 
a  national  restoration  of  the  people  became  part  and 
parcel  of  the  religion  and  remains  to  this  day  a 
doctrine  of  orthodox  Judaism  —  is  not  this  circum¬ 
stance  a  justification  for  regarding  the  Jews  as  a 
nationality  at  least,  if  not  as  a  nation  a  nation¬ 
ality,  if  you  choose,  temporarily  deprived  of  its 
independence?  Hardly.  For,  as  pointed  out,  the 
political  restoration  is  entirely  secondary  in  ortho¬ 
dox  Judaism  to  the  religious  aspect  of  such  an  event. 
The  latter  has  always  held  the  larger  place.  The 
political  restoration  in  the  orthodox  doctrine  is 
purely  incidental  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  as 
a  religious  body  who  will  be  permitted,  when  God 
so  wills,  again  to  dwell  in  the  old  homeland,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  enjoying  national  independence  but 
in  order  to  restore  the  Temple  cult.  The  Temple, 


Nationality  Versus  Nation 


77 


not  the  State,  forms  the  center  of  this  belief  in  a 
restoration,  precisely  as  the  Messianic  promise  is  es¬ 
sentially  a  religious  doctrine  and  only  to  a  minor 
degree,  like  a  tail  to  a  kite,  a  political  one.  At  no 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  since  their  dispersion 
throughout  the  world  has  there  been  any  combina¬ 
tion  in  the  name  of  the  religion  for  a  political  restor¬ 
ation,  though  there  have  been  movements  of  a 
purely  religious  character  led  by  those  who  laid 
claim  to  being  the  Messiah  and  who  as  part  of  that 
claim  were  to  lead  the  people  back  to  Palestine.1 

Now,  in  view  of  all  this,  it  is  manifestly  mislead¬ 
ing  to  hold  up  Zionism  in  its  modern  political  aspect 
as  the  manifestation  of  the  reassertion  of  the  na¬ 
tionalistic  feeling  or  spirit  among  the  Jews.  It  is  a 
surface  view  to  regard  Zionism,  as  is  done  by  most 
of  the  political  Zionists,  as  part  of  the  general 
movement  of  the  rise  of  nationalities  which  is  a  dis¬ 
tinguishing  trait  in  the  political  history  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  which  led  to  the  resuscitation  of  the 
Balkan  nationalities,  which  prompted  the  union  of 
Italy  and  found  another  expression  in  the  formation 
of  the  united  German  Empire  in  1871,  and  which  is 

1  See  the  account  of  such  a  movement  in  the  eighteenth 
century  in  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews,  Volume  5,  pp.  272- 
290. 


78  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

manifesting  itself  at  the  end  of  the  war  in  the  efforts 
of  Polish,  Bohemian  and  Magyar  nationalities  for  a 
renewal  of  their  national  independence.  These 
movements  furnish  no  analogy  for  Zionism.  None 
of  the  nationalities  here  involved  had  ever  ceased  to 
be  one.  They  had  remained  nationalities,  despite 
some  emigration  from  their  native  lands.  The 
movement  for  political  union  and  political  inde¬ 
pendence  followed  in  the  case  of  all  the  nationalities 
above  named  upon  the  removal  of  pressure  exerted 
by  a  foreign  domination  in  some  form  or  the  other. 
That  pressure  had  kept  the  nationalities  in  question 
from  asserting  themselves.  The  Balkan  nations  al¬ 
ways  remained  in  the  Balkan  States,  and  fought  for 
their  independence  in  lands  which  they  had  never 
given  up.  German  and  Italian  unity  was  accom¬ 
plished  as  soon  as  it  became  feasible  through  change 
of  political  circumstances,  for  groups  artificially 
separated  from  one  another  to  coalesce.  The  union 
represented  the  normal  condition  following  the 
breaking  up  into  little  groups ;  the  separation  an 
abnormal  state  of  affairs  brought  about  through 
conquest  or  through  internal  difficulties.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  study  the  conditions  under  which  the 
movement  for  the  reassertion  of  the  principle  of  na¬ 
tionality  in  Europe  during  the  nineteenth  century 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  79 

unfolded  itself  to  recognize  that  Zionism  is  a  move¬ 
ment  of  a  totally  different  character. 
f  Zionism  did  not  arise  through  the  removal  of 
pressure  on  a  suppressed  nationality,  but  starts  as  an 
ameliorative  measure  because  of  that  pressure.  It 
is  a  movement  on  the  part  of  people  who,  because  of 
the  hopeless  outlook  for  improving  their  condition 
in  the  country  in  which  they  dwelt,  sought  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  lead  a  new  life  under  freer  development 
elsewhere.  /  Zionism  does  not  arise  in  Palestine,  but 
outside  of  it.  It  moves  towards  Palestine  under 
the  influence  of  a  romantic  sentiment,  f  It  is  not  a 
movement  arousing  the  Jews  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  except  insofar  as  Jews  sympathize  with  their 
suffering  fellows.  For  similar  reasons  the  analogy 
between  political  Zionism  and  the  efforts  of  the  Irish 
to  secure  their  political  independence  falls  to  the 
ground.  The  Irish  never  ceased  to  be  a  nationality 
in  the  land  in  which  they  remained  after  coming 
under  British  rule.  Ireland  remained  distinctively 
Irish,  despite  large  emigrations  through  economic 
pressure  to  the  United  States  and  Canada.  But 
Palestine  ceased  to  be  Jewish  a  few  centuries  after 
the  extinction  of  the  national  life  of  the  Jews.  It 
is  to-day  predominatingly  Arabic,  and  next  to  Mo¬ 
hammedans,  Christians  from  all  parts  of  the  world 


80  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

are  more  numerous  in  Palestine  than  Jews,  indeed 
about  twice  as  numerous.  Similarly  the  rise  of  the 
Armenians  and  of  the  Arabs  of  Arabia  during  the 
war  to  assert  their  right  to  self-determination  are 
movements  among  those  living  in  their  own  lands. 

It  was  natural  that  both  in  Russia,  where  the 
Zionist  movement  arose,  and  in  Germany  and  Aus¬ 
tria,  where  it  gained  strength  through  the  reaction 
upon  Jews  of  the  social  prejudice  aroused  against 
them,  the  movement  should  attach  itself  to  the 
Zionistic  sentiment.  The  political  Zionists  are  the  j 
victims  of  a  curious  self-deception  in  interpreting 
this  sentiment  as  due  to  a  nationalistic  feeling.  The 
sentiment  is  due,  in  the  case  of  the  orthodox  among 
the  Zionists  —  and  they  form,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
very  small  group  —  because  of  their  belief  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  restoration  as  primarily  a  religious 
hope;  and  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  abandoned 
orthodox  Judaism  the  sentiment  is  to  be  explained  as 
the  survival  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  doctrine 
for  so  many  centuries.  It  would  be  strange  if  it 
were  otherwise,  for  it  is  of  the  nature  of  sentiment 
to  survive  long  after  the  basis  upon  which  it  rests  has 
passed  away.  Tradition  continues  to  exert  its  force 
long  after  the  belief  upon  which  it  rests  has  been 
dispelled.  Ceremonies  and  rites  continue  to  be 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  81 

practiced  for  centuries  after  the  reasons  underlying 
them  are  no  longer  accepted  or  even  understood. 
And  it  is  well  from  many  points  of  view  that  this 
should  be  the  case,  for  without  tradition  and  with¬ 
out  the  influence  of  sentiment,  life  would  be  de¬ 
prived  of  some  of  its  finest  aspirations  and  much  of 
that  romantic  coloring,  which  we  need  to  counteract 
the  deadening  influence  of  the  everyday  prosaic 
and  monotonous  succession  of  the  same  experiences 
—  the  endless  cycle  of  everlasting  repetition  which 
that  amiable  cynic,  Koheleth,  justly  recognizes  as 
the  source  of  ennui ,  of  becoming  tired  of  life  itself.1 

We  must  differentiate  therefore  in  an  analysis 
of  Zionism  between  the  conditions  that  called  it 
forth,  and  the  direction  that  it  took  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  one  root  for  a  political  Zionistic  move¬ 
ment  that  survived  after  the  two  others  had  lost 
their  raison  d'etre .  That  sentiment  is  expressed  by 
the  Psalmist  of  old 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning.” 

There  can  be  no  question  of  the  strength  and  genu¬ 
ineness  of  that  sentiment  among  many  who  have  in 

1  Ecclesiastes,  Chap.  i.  See  Jastrow,  A  Gentle  Cynic,  p. 


82  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

recent  years  given  their  adherence  to  the  movement. 
Indeed,  ever  since  the  rise  of  the  Russian  societies 
of  the  “  Lovers  of  Zion,”  when  the  trend  towards 
establishing  colonies  in  Palestine  as  an  escape  for 
Russian  Jews  set  in,  the  romantic  sentiment  towards 
Palestine  has  steadily  gained  in  strength.  Natu¬ 
rally  so,  for  it  makes  its  appeal  to  every  one  who  is 
capable  of  feeling  the  attachment  to  a  historic  and 
significant  past,  irrespective  of  his  attitude  towards 
Judaism  viewed  as  a  religion.  “  There  is  a  sense,” 
says  George  Eliot  in  one  of  her  essays,1  “  in  which 
the  worthy  child  of  a  nation  that  has  brought  forth 
illustrious  prophets,  high  and  unique  among  the 
poets  of  the  world,  is  bound  by  their  visions.”  The 
Zionistic  sentiment  would  therefore  become  a  very 
natural  bond  uniting  those  who  feel  that  they  have 
something  in  common  with  fellow  Jews.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  one  can  only  escape  from  this 
feeling  by  a  deliberate  attempt  to  suppress  it,  but 
neither  the  feeling  nor  the  sentiment  for  Palestine 
is  due  to  any  national  consciousness.  The  test  may 
be  made  by  any  Jew  who  feels  himself  to  be  a  thor¬ 
ough  American  or  a  thorough  Englishman  or 
Frenchman.  He  cannot  feel  any  bond  of  nation- 

1  “  The  Modern  Hep,  Hep,”  in  the  Impressions  of  Theo¬ 
phrastus  Such. 


Nationality  Versus  Nation  83 

ality  attaching  him,  let  us  say,  to  the  Jews  of  Mo¬ 
rocco  or  of  Yemen,  who  will  appear  as  strange  to 
him  as  they  would  to  any  other  Westerner  coming 
in  contact  with  groups  that  have  remained  thor¬ 
oughly  Oriental  in  character  and  with  points  of 
view  and  customs  that  remind  one  of  the  remote 
past  rather  than  of  the  living  present.  Only  those 
who  have  no  country  or  who  do  not  feel  strongly 
attached  to  the  one  in  which  they  happen  to  dwell, 
can  possibly  have  a  genuine  nationalistic  stirring  at 
the  thought  of  Palestine.  The  fallacy  of  political 
Zionism  thus  rests  on  a  whole  series  of  false  inter¬ 
pretations  and  false  analogies:  a  false  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  original  desire  of  Russian  Jews  to  secure 
what  Pinsker  called  “  self-emancipation,”  and  which 
was  merely  an  endeavor  to  seek  a  new  life  with 
opportunities  for  free  development;  a  false  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  reaction  of  anti-Semitism  on  those 
who  no  longer  were  religious  Jews;  a  false  interpre¬ 
tation  of  Jewish  self-consciousness;  a  false  analogy 
between  the  present  status  of  the  Jews  and  that  of 
genuine  nationalities  seeking  political  independence ; 
a  false  analogy  between  the  factor  of  tradition  and 
that  of  race;  a  false  analogy  between  the  position 
of  Jews  over  2000  years  ago  as  a  political  unit  and 
their  present  status  as  a  people  bound  by  a  common 


84  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

religion  and  by  common  tradition,  with  the  tradi¬ 
tion  surviving  among  those  who  have  ceased  to  feel 
the  religious  bond.  The  romantic  sentiment  for 
Palestine  is  natural  and  worthy,  provided  it  does 
not  pass  beyond  the  point  proper  to  it  —  that  is, 
provided  it  remains  a  sentiment.  When  it  trans¬ 
gresses  that  bound  it  leads  to  Jewish  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  which,  while  likewise  an  intelligible  reaction 
against  social  prejudice,  is  apt  to  mislead  one  into 
the  error  of  mistaking  the  reaction  for  the  stirrings 
of  a  dormant  national  feeling.  Political  Zionism! 
also  involves  a  false  reading  of  the  trend  of  Jewish 
history  during  the  past  2000  years.  It  is  to  this 
aspect  of  the  question  that  we  must  next  turn,  and  , 
it  will  be  my  effort  to  show  that  it  is  because  when 
the  Jews  ceased  to  be  a  nation  they  became  some¬ 
thing  more,  that  they  survived. 


VI 


THE  TREND  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  impor¬ 
tant  fact  that  the  prophets,  who  inaugurated  the 
movement  which  culminated  in  Judaism,  appeared  at 
a  time  when  the  national  life  of  the  Jews  in  Pales¬ 
tine  was  approaching  its  eclipse.  The  new  concep¬ 
tion  of  religion  which  they  brought  forward  was 
not  an  outcome  of  Jewish  nationalism,  but  rather  a 
protest  against  it,  in  so  far  as  the  new  conception 
broke  with  the  old  one,  which  assumed  that  a  deity 
was  particularly  concerned  with  one  group,  and  that 
a  people  could  not  survive  after  rejection  by  their 
national  protector.  The  conception  of  a  God  of 
universal  sway  which  was  the  logical  conclusion 
from  the  position  of  the  prophets,  though  not  defi¬ 
nitely  reached  till  the  post-exilic  period,  was  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  doctrine  on  which  religion  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  as  in  antiquity  in  general, 
rested,  whereby  the  jurisdiction  of  a  deity  was 
geographically  circumscribed  by  the  territory  which 

8s 


86  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

a  people  controlled.  Even  more  significant  as  an 
indication  of  the  profound  break  with  a  past  entirely 
wrapped  up  in  the  national  life  of  a  people,  is  the 
circumstance  that  the  contributions  made  by  the 
Jews  to  the  world  came,  not  when  the  national  life 
was  at  its  height,  but  after  it  had  ceased  practically 
to  exist,  even  though  the  aspirations  and  the  hope 
for  renewal  of  political  independence  continued. 

We  have  seen  that  when  the  Jews  were  permitted 
to  return  from  the  Babylonian  exile  at  the  end  of 
the  sixth  century  and  received  a  measure  of  local 
autonomy  under  Persian  control,  they  were  no 
longer  a  purely  political  unit,  but  essentially  a  reli¬ 
gious  group.  The  impelling  factor  that  dominated 
their  lives  after  the  Babylonian  exile  was  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  afforded  by  the  return  to  restore  the  Temple 
in  Jerusalem  with  its  service.  Yahweh’s  sanctuary 
served  as  their  rallying  point.  The  study  of  His 
Law  as  embodied  in  a  series  of  codes,  enclosed  in  a 
framework  of  tradition,  became  the  chief  expression 
of  the  people’s  highest  ambitions.  The  national  life 
and  the  national  hope  were  tacked  on  to  the  religious 
mission  of  which  the  people  became  more  and  more 
conscious.  Bound,  however,  as  every  people  is  by 
the  weight  of  tradition,  the  Jews  could  not  entirely 
divorce  their  religion  from  their  nationality,  and 


The  Trend  of  Jewish  History  87 

only  the  choicest  spirits  among  them  recognized  the 
direction  in  which  they  were  drifting  as  a  group. 
For  all  practical  purposes  the  religious  bond  became 
more  and  more  the  sole  tie  uniting  the  people,  with 
national  consciousness  tacked  on  as  a  survival  of  the 
past.  Even  when  this  national  feeling  flares  up 
under  the  pressure  of  a  political  crisis,  it  is  as  much 
due  to  a  religious  impulse  as  to  a  political  one.  The 
Maccabean  uprising  in  the  year  166  b.  c.  is  proof  in 
point.  It  was  essentially  a  religious  rebellion,  an 
effort  to  prevent  the  religion  from  being  lost  by  the 
attempt  of  the  Greeks  to  crush  it.  The  pollution  of 
the  holy  sanctuary  through  a  policy  of  Helleniza- 
tion  which  was  to  be  extended  to  the  cult  aroused 
Judas  Maccabeus  and  his  followers  to  a  supreme 
effort;  and  it  was  only  because  religious  freedom 
could  not  be  obtained  without  also  throwing  off  the 
political  yoke  of  the  Greek  governors  that  the  up¬ 
rising  assumed  a  political  character,  a  genuine  upris¬ 
ing  to  preserve  the  right  of  the  people  for  self- 
determination  of  its  destinies,  religious  and  political. 

The  process  which  changed  the  Jews  from  a  mere 
nation  to  something  more  than  a  nation  reached  its 
climax  when  the  final  struggle  with  the  Roman 
power  ensued  and  which  ended  in  135  a.  d.  in  the 
complete  national  eclipse.  The  Jews  split  into  two 


88  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

groups,  those  who  followed  the  teachings  of  the 
Apostles  and  proceeded  to  gain  the  world  for  the 
new  religion;  and  those  who  remained  a  separate 
group,  becoming  more  and  more  isolated  from  the 
world  about  them  by  assuming  the  role  of  a  reli¬ 
gious  band,  who  combined  with  the  aspirations  of 
the  ancient  Prophets  an  unyielding  attachment  to  a 
mass  of  rites  and  ceremonies  that  had  grown  up  in 
the  course  of  many  centuries  and  which  had  be¬ 
come  Traditional  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  Tal¬ 
mudic  Judaism.  Had  the  Jews  remained  merely  a 
nation  they  would  have  disappeared  upon  the  down¬ 
fall  of  their  distinct  national  life,  precisely  as  so 
many  other  nations  of  antiquity  disappeared  upon 
the  extinction  of  their  national  vitality,  as  the  Egyp¬ 
tians,  Babylonians,  Phoenicians,  Moabites,  Philis¬ 
tines,  the  Persians,  the  Hittites  and  many  others  dis¬ 
appeared.  The  Jews  survived  because  they  had 
ceased  to  be  a  mere  nation  for  several  centuries 
before  the  actual  extinction  of  the  feeble  flame  of 
nationality;  they  survive  to-day  because  of  the 
strong  bond  that  was  created  among  them  through 
their  becoming  a  religious  people.  Declining  to 
make  any  concessions  in  their  religion  to  include 
others  than  Jews,  Judaism  presented  the  aspect  of 
a  religion  universal  in  its  implications  but  restricted 


The  Trend  of  Jewish  History  89 

in  its  scope,  as  against  Christianity  which  opened  its 
doors  to  all  peoples  and  threw  down  all  nationalistic 
barriers  to  the  acceptance  of  the  new  faith. 

In  accord  with  the  fact  that  Judaism  is  not  an 
outcome  of  Jewish  nationalism  but  reaches  its  defi¬ 
nite  constitution  after  the  national  life  had  almost 
run  its  course,  we  find  the  great  contributions  of 
the  Jews  to  the  world  all  made,  not  as  a  result  of 
their  national  activity,  but  through  the  stimulus 
exerted  by  their  religion  as  it  shaped  itself  after  the 
rise  of  the  prophets.1  The  spirit  prevailing  in  the 
Pentateuch  is  that  of  the  Prophets,  not  that  of  the 
earlier  nationalists.  The  traditions  of  the  past  and 
the  entire  history  of  the  people  are  viewed  in  the 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  likewise 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  religion  of  the  Prophets. 
They  receive  their  final  form  as  the  expression  of 
post-exilic  Judaism.  The  great  master-pieces  of 
Old  Testament  literature  —  the  Psalms,  Job  and 
Ecclesiastes  —  all  of  them  of  post-exilic  origin,  are 
the  product  of  the  new  note  struck  by  the  Prophets, 
which  entirely  altered  the  attitude  of  the  people  to¬ 
wards  life,  and  ultimately  changed  the  status  of  the 
Jews  from  a  nation  to  that  of  “  the  people  of  the 

1  See  further  on  this  point,  Jastrow,  A  Gentle  Cynic,  p.  56 
et  seq. 


90  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

book,”  as  Mohammed  calls  than  —  a  people  kept 
together  by  a  spiritual  bond  that  far  transcended  in 
significance  and  in  its  results  the  former  political 
union.  If  in  the  Psalms  the  national  note  is  not 
infrequently  struck,  it  is  as  an  accompaniment  to 
the  religious  melody  which  dominates.  The  Zion- 
istic  longing  which  like  a  plaint  runs  through  the 
ages, 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem,” 

is  primarily  religious,  not  nationalistic.  The  Psalm¬ 
ist  thinks  of  Jerusalem  as  the  Holy  City  —  not  of 
the  national  center  and  the  political  capitol. 

In  a  further  illustration  that  the  destiny  of  the 
Jews  —  so  far  as  that  destiny  can  be  read  in  their 
history  —  was  to  unfold  their  real  strength  after  the 
national  life  had  ebbed  away,  we  may  point  to  the 
fact  that  as  a  nation  in  Palestine  they  made  no  im¬ 
portant  contribution  to  civilization,  but  only  after 
they  ceased  to  be  a  nation  and  scattered  outside  of 
Palestine.  Politically,  Palestine  never  played  any 
notable  part  either  in  antiquity  or  in  later  days.  Its 
geographical  position  as  the  bridge  between  Asia 
and  Africa,  singled  it  out  in  early  days  as  a  buffer 
state  between  the  Empire  of  the  Nile  and  the  one 
which  arose  in  the  Euphrates  Valley.  It  also  acted 


The  Trend  of  Jewish  History  91 

often  as  a  bulwark  against  the  advance  of  hordes 
from  the  North  —  and  at  times  the  bulwark  was 
stormed.  Palestine  has  no  river  that  can  serve  as 
an  avenue  of  commerce.  It  is  cut  up  by  mountain 
ranges  and  valleys  which  split  up  the  population  into 
separate  groups.  Even  the  Jews  themselves  could 
not  maintain  their  unity  in  such  a  land  and  soon 
divided  into  a  northern  and  a  southern  Kingdom. 

As  long  as  the  Hebrews  enjoyed  national  inde¬ 
pendence  they  made  no  contributions  in  the  field  of 
art,  or  in  science,  in  methods  of  government  or  in 
military  strategy.  When  Solomon  planned  to  build 
the  Temple  he  had  to  send  to  Phoenicia  for  architects 
and  builders.  There  did  not  rise  in  Palestine  any 
specific  Jewish  architecture.  The  Temple  was  pat¬ 
terned  after  the  religious  structures  of  Phoenicia  and 
Babylonia.  In  literature,  as  has  just  been  pointed 
out,  the  Hebrews  made  no  original  contributions  of 
any  moment  until  after  the  creation  of  the  new  type 
of  religion  which,  be  it  noted  once  more,  made  its 
appearance  as  the  national  life  was  passing  away. 
But  note  the  profound  difference  in  the  intellectual 
activity  of  the  Jews  after  their  dispersion  through¬ 
out  the  Western  world.  In  Alexandria,  under  the 
stimulus  of  close  contact  with  Greek  thought  and 
Greek  culture,  the  Jewish  settlement,  which  can  be 


92  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

traced  back  to  a  few  centuries  before  our  era,  created 
an  original  school  of  speculative  thought.  The 
Jews  of  Egypt  became  world  traders,  and  as  they 
passed  into  one  European  country  after  the  other 
they  reacted  on  the  impulse  exerted  by  the  new  con¬ 
ditions  of  life.  Until  restrictions  to  their  natural 
energies  were  put  upon  them,  chiefly  during  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages,  they  constituted  an  important  element  in 
the  population,  contributing  to  the  science,  art  and 
commerce  of  their  surroundings.  While  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  leading  a  purely  national  existence,  the  Jews 
produced  no  great  philosophers,  but  after  their  dis¬ 
persion  throughout  Western  Europe  a  Maimonides 
and  Ibn  Gebirol  arose  in  Spain,  a  Spinoza  in  Hol¬ 
land,  and  in  our  days  Bergson  in  France.  More 
particularly  since  their  political  emancipation  in 
Western  Europe  which  enabled  them  to  enter  fully 
into  the  intellectual  life  about  them,  have  the  Jews 
produced  an  amazingly  large  array  of  eminent  men 
—  and  also  some  eminent  women  —  in  all  fields. 
We  do  not  learn  of  any  great  musicians  among  the 
Hebrews  of  ancient  Palestine,  but  in  Germany  they 
produce  a  Mendelssohn-Bartholdy  and  a  Meyer¬ 
beer,  in  Russia  Rubinstein,  and  in  Austria  Gold- 
mark  —  to  name  only  the  most  eminent  among  a 
host  of  distinguished  names.  One  scans  the  pages 


The  Trend  of  Jewish  History 


93 


of  the  Old  Testament  in  vain  for  great  political 
leaders,  with  the  exception  of  Moses  of  whom  much 
that  is  told  is  legendary,  and  of  David  of  whom 
much  that  is  told  is  not  edifying;  but  within  an 
astonishingly  short  time  after  their  political  eman¬ 
cipation  they  produced  a  Beaconsfield  in  England, 
Lasker  and  Bamberger  in  Germany,  and  a  Sonnino 
in  Italy.  In  all  European  countries  as  well  as  in 
this  country  we  have  a  long  list  of  eminent  scien¬ 
tists,  historians,  physicians,  mathematicians,  philolo¬ 
gists,  economists,  who  are  Jews  or  of  Jewish  origin. 

Outside  of  the  literary  inspiration  afforded  by 
the  religious  movement,  the  Jews  while  in  Palestine 
produced  no  great  literati,  but  in  Germany  we 
have  Heine,  in  England  Zangwill,  in  Denmark 
Brandes,  and  in  Austria  Schnitzler  —  all  of  the 
highest  quality.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  do  more 
than  refer  to  the  large  part  played  by  Jews  through¬ 
out  the  world  in  commerce  and  finance,  and  this 
prominence  is  all  the  more  noteworthy  because  in 

I  Palestine  they  were  an  agricultural  people  and 

>  eschewed  commerce.  The  dispersion  changed  their 
mode  of  life  as  well  as  their  outlook  upon  it,  so  that 
their  contributions  towards  commercial  activity  in 

: 

the  Western  world  are  a  direct  result  of  their  ceas¬ 
ing  to  be  a  nation,  devoted  to  agricultural  pursuits. 


94  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

But,  say  the  Zionists,  these  contributions  are  not 
credited  to  the  Jewish  people  but  to  the  lands  in 
which  those  who  distinguish  themselves  happen  to 
dwell.  In  Palestine  alone  can  men  be  produced  who 
will  be  recognized  as  being  great  in  their  capacity  as 
Jews.  I  confess  that  I  have  little  patience  with 
such  a  chauvinistic  sentiment  which  places  race 
pride  above  the  actual  achievement.  What  differ¬ 
ence  does  it  make  whether  the  contributions  of  the 
Jews  are  entered  in  a  ledger  as  due  to  them  or  not,  so 
long  as  the  world  receives  the  benefit?  Secondly, 
it  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that  the  Jewish  type  of 
mind,  so  far  as  it  can  express  itself,  is  to  be  detected 
in  the  songs  of  Heine,  in  the  compositions  of  Meyer¬ 
beer  and  in  the  novels  of  Zangwill,  as  it  also  shows 
itself  in  the  philosophy  of  Spinoza  and  in  the  criti¬ 
cal  acumen  of  Brandes.  As  for  such  fields  as  his¬ 
tory,  archaeology,  philology  and  the  natural  sciences, 
surely  no  one  supposes  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
“  Jewish  ”  mathematics  or  “  Jewish  ”  chemistry. 
It  is  always  somewhat  chauvinistic  and  a  little  vul¬ 
gar  to  boast  of  a  great  man  because  he  is  a  Jew, 
but  it  is  certainly  still  worse  to  regret  that  he  was 
not  born  in  Palestine  and  that  his  contributions  to 
science  or  literature  or  music  were  not  made  as  a 
member  of  a  Jewish  State.  The  only  index  that 


The  Trend  of  Jewish  History  95 

we  have  of  judging  of  the  destiny  of  a  people  is  by 
its  past,  and  the  history  of  the  Jews  during  the  past 
2000  years  points  unmistakably  to  their  function  of 
commingling  with  their  fellow  men  and  thus  render¬ 
ing  their  share  of  service  towards  the  advancement 
of  culture  and  civilization.  To  those  who  read  his¬ 
tory  aright  it  must  be  clear  that  it  is  the  function  of 
the  Jews  to  enter  into  the  life  about  them,  to  give 
also,  as  the  recent  war  has  shown,  their  full  share  of 
patriotic  service  when  their  country  demands  it. 

Now,  instead  of  drawing  the  obvious  lesson  from 
the  trend  of  Jewish  history,  the  political  Zionists 
propose  to  make  the  attempt  to  turn  the  hands  of 
time  backward  some  2000  years  in  order  to  set  up 
as  an  ideal  the  re-recognition  of  the  Jews  as  a  sepa¬ 
rate  political  entity,  and  this  at  a  time  when  a  new 
era  of  liberalism  appears  to  be  dawning  which  there 
is  reason  to  hope  and  believe  will  bring  to  the  Jews 
of  Russia,  Roumania  and  Poland  relief  from  their 
present  pitiable  condition  through  a  recognition  of 
their  full  rights  of  citizenship  in  these  lands.  Such 
a  recognition  would  alone  furnish  a  solution  of  the 
so-called  Jewish  Question  in  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  age.  Not  only  the  Jews  but  the  world  ought 
to  be  unwilling  to  accept  any  other  solution.  It 
seems  strange  indeed  to  find  the  Zionists  engaged 


9 6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

in  exerting  every  nerve  to  take  a  step  backward, 
while  the  whole  world  seems  bent  on  moving  for¬ 
ward.  It  seems  still  stranger  that  Zionists  should 
grow  enthusiastic  over  the  prospect  of  establishing 
a  Jewish  State  in  a  land  which  can  only  hold  one- 
tenth  of  the  entire  number  of  Jews  in  the  world.  It 
seems  strangest  of  all  that  they  should  favor  a  state 
which  necessarily  involves  a  recognition  of  some 
bond  between  religion  and  nationality  and  sets  up 
again  the  older  conception  of  a  nation  formed  by  a 
single  nationality,  whereas  the  history  of  Palestine 
itself  during  the  past  2000  years  points  unmistak¬ 
ably  to  its  reorganization  according  to  the  modern 
democratic  view  of  the  State,  based  on  a  national 
unit  formed  by  peoples  irrespective  of  descent  or 
ethnic  qualities.  What  is  needed  is  a  Palestinian 
State  in  which  all  who  agree  to  adhere  to  the  prin¬ 
ciples  on  which  the  country  of  their  birth  or  adop¬ 
tion  is  to  be  organized  shall  have  an  equal  share. 
The  fallacy  of  political  Zionism  is  strikingly  re¬ 
vealed  by  a  consideration  of  Palestine  of  To-day,  to 
which  we  next  turn. 


VII 


PALESTINE  OF  TO-DAY 

The  changes  that  have  come  over  Palestine  itself 
since  it  ceased  to  be  a  national  center  for  the  Jewish 
people  constitute  another  potent  objection  to  the 
aim  of  the  political  Zionist  to  reconstitute  that  his¬ 
toric  corner  of  the  globe  as  a  Jewish  State. 

From  having  once  been  the  “  Promised  Land  ” 
for  one  nationality,  Palestine  has  become  a  land  of 
promise  for  many  peoples,  a  great  gathering  place 
of  nationalities  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  It 
contains  at  present  a  mixed  population  out  of  all 
proportion  to  its  limited  territory  of  some  10,000 
square  miles.1  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that 
the  changes  in  Palestine  during  the  past  two  millen¬ 
niums  have  been  as  decisive  in  their  character  as 
those  that  have  taken  place  in  the  Western  Continent 
since  its  discovery  some  400  years  ago.  A  totally 
different  Palestine  has  arisen  in  the  place  of  the  old 

1  It  is  somewhat  larger  than  the  State  of  Vermont  and 
somewhat  smaller  than  the  State  of  Maryland.  It  would 
stretch  on  the  Hudson  from  New  York  to  Albany,  and  east¬ 
wards  to  an  extent  varying  from  twenty  to  forty  miles, 

9  7 


98  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

one  which  the  Jews  through  force  of  circumstances 
were  obliged  to  abandon.  As  a  land  now  filled  with 
sacred  associations  for  the  followers  of  three  great 
religions,  it  cannot  be  said  to  belong  to  any  particu¬ 
lar  group,  as  is  maintained  by  the  political  Zionists. 
It  has  become  as  sacred  to  Christians  and  Moham¬ 
medans  as  to  Jews.  Palestine  is  the  birth-place  of 
Christianity  as  well  as  of  Judaism,  and  that  single 
momentous  fact  compels  the  historian  to  regard  it  in 
a  different  light  from  what  it  was  before  Chris¬ 
tianity.  While  not  the  birth-place  of  Islam,  Mo¬ 
hammed  yet  drew  his  inspiration  from  the  religions 
that  arose  in  Palestine.  The  only  miracle  recorded 
in  Mohammed’s  life  was  the  mysterious  night  ride 
to  Jerusalem  to  confirm  his  mission  as  the  Messen¬ 
ger  of  Allah.  Mohammed  claimed  to  be  a  suc¬ 
cessor  of  a  line  of  Prophets  stretching  from  Abra¬ 
ham  to  Jesus.  He  called  himself  the  “  seal  ”  of 
these  messengers  of  God.  He  fixed  upon  Jerusalem 
as  the  spiritual  center  of  the  religion  he  had  founded. 
The  prayers  of  the  faithful  were  to  be  directed  to¬ 
wards  Jerusalem,  as  the  Jews  and  the  early  Chris¬ 
tians  orientated  themselves  towards  that  center  in 
their  religious  worship.  It  was  only  when  both 
Jews  and  Christians  declined  the  invitation  of  Mo¬ 
hammed  to  recognize  him  as  a  Prophet  that  he 


Palestine  of  To-Day 


99 


changed  the  kibleh  —  that  is,  the  direction  of 
prayer — from  Jerusalem  to  his  own  birth-place, 
Mecca.  Despite  this  change,  Jerusalem  became  as 
sacred  to  Mohammedans  as  Mecca,  aye,  in  some  re¬ 
spects  more  so,  for  there  is  nothing  in  Mecca  to 
remind  the  Mohammedan  pilgrim  of  the  Prophet, 
except  the  fact  that  he  was  born  there.  The  pil¬ 
grimage  to  Mecca  was  not  instituted  by  Mohammed 
but  was  an  old  Arab  institution  which  Mohammed, 
bound  by  the  traditions  of  the  past,  observed  and 
which  on  that  account  became  an  obligation  upon  all 
his  followers.  In  Jerusalem,  in  the  cave  under  the 
sacred  rock  around  which  the  chief  mosque  is  built 
the  mark  of  Mohammed’s  head  is  shown.  Day  and 
night  Mohammedans  may  be  found  in  this  cave  seek¬ 
ing  by  prayer  to  Allah  to  obtain  the  merit  that 
attaches  to  the  sanctity  of  this  spot.  The  rock  rep¬ 
resents  the  site  of  Solomon’s  Temple,  but  its  sacred 
character  antedates  even  the  coming  of  the  Hebrews 
by  an  indefinite  number  of  centuries.  The  rock 
itself  is  a  survival  of  primitive  stone  worship, 
and  Solomon  chose  this  site  for  his  Temple  because 
the  Jebusites,  from  whom  David  conquered  Jeru¬ 
salem  (c.  1000  b.  c.),  had  brought  their  sacrifices 
to  this  rock,  which  was  an  ancient  altar.1 

1  See  Barton,  Archeology  of  the  Bible,  p.  168. 


ioo  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

The  sanctity  of  Jerusalem  thus  reverts  to  a 
period  far  beyond  the  rise  of  the  oldest  of  the 
three  religions  whose  associations  are  entwined 
around  the  place.  It  carries  us  back  to  the  primi¬ 
tive  Semites  for  whom  Jerusalem  was  a  stronghold 
centuries  before  the  federation  of  the  Hebrew  semi- 
nomadic  tribes  was  organized.  Outside  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  the  whole  of  Palestine  is  as  sacred  for  Chris¬ 
tians  as  it  is  for  Jews.  Bethlehem,  Nazareth,  Ti¬ 
berias  and  the  Jordan  are  associated  with  events  or 
legends  in  the  life  of  the  founder,  and  Christians, 
Mohammedans  and  Jews  alike  revere  the  sites 
which  are  associated  with  such  figures  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  Abraham,  Jacob,  Joseph,  Rachael, 
David,  Solomon,  Absalom,  Job  and  the  Prophets. 
Mohammedans  and  Christians  have  fought  for  pos¬ 
session  of  the  land.  One  of  the  first  goals  of  the 
Arabic  forces  gathered  by  the  successors  of  Mo¬ 
hammed  was  the  conquest  of  Palestine,  which  took 
place  in  636  a.  d.  only  a  few  years  after  the  death  of 
the  Prophet  at  Medina  (632  b.  c.).  For  two  centu¬ 
ries,  from  the  tenth  to  the  twelfth,  armies  crusaded 
from  all  parts  of  Europe  to  wrest  Palestine  from 
the  hands  of  the  Mohammedans.  No  fiercer  wars, 
intensified  as  they  were  by  a  religious  background, 
were  ever  waged  than  those  for  the  possession  of 


Palestine  of  To-Day 


IOI 


Jerusalem  during  these  two  centuries.  The  struggle 
ended  in  the  triumph  of  the  Crescent  over  the  Cross, 
but  the  soldiers  of  the  Cross  kept  in  their  hearts  the 
longing  of  the  ancient  Zionist, 

“  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem.” 

The  Mohammedan  conquerors  in  time  made  con¬ 
cessions  to  their  vanquished  rivals,  and  permitted 
them  to  retain  possession  of  the  sites  most  sacred  to 
Christianity,  more  particularly  the  traditional  birth¬ 
place  and  the  tomb  of  the  founder.  Around  these 
places  as  well  as  in  other  spots  associated  with  the 
life  of  Jesus,  churches  and  chapels  have  been  erected 
which  constitute  the  most  sacred  monuments  of 
Christianity.  The  visitor  at  Jerusalem  is  pro¬ 
foundly  impressed  by  this  pathetic  three-fold  at¬ 
tachment  to  Jerusalem  on  the  part  of  the  followers  of 
three  religions  who,  despite  the  bitterness  in  their 
hearts  towards  one  another,  meet  in  Jerusalem, 
drawn  thither  because  of  recollections  that  they  have 
in  common.  If  one  would  visualize  what  Jerusa¬ 
lem  means  to  Jews,  Christians  and  Mohammedans, 
one  must  pass  from  the  Mosque  around  the  rock 
to  the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  and  thence  to 
the  wall  remaining  from  the  Temple  in  the  days  of 
Herod  at  which  pious  Jews  wail  daily  for  the  loss 


102  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

of  Jerusalem.  The  scenes  that  one  witnesses  at 
these  three  spots  epitomize  the  history  of  Palestine 
as  a  sacred  land.  They  illustrate  what  the  country 
means  to  all  who  feel  the  touch  of  the  past,  whose 
faith  dominates  their  lives  and  with  whom  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  Zion  remains  a  living  force. 

The  same  impulse  which  has  at  all  times  acted  as 
a  magnet  in  drawing  pious  Jews  to  Palestine,1  there 
to  spend  their  lives  in  study  and  devotion  and  to  be 
buried  on  holy  soil,  has  also  drawn  Christians  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  who  wish  to  live  near  the 
scenes  of  the  Gospel  stories  and  who  feel  that  only 
in  the  land  of  the  Christ  can  they  lead  rounded- 
out  Christian  lives.  Bethlehem  and  Nazareth  are 
largely  Christian  settlements,  Nazareth  almost  en¬ 
tirely  so.  In  Jerusalem  the  Eastern  and  Western 
branches  of  the  Church  are  represented  by  large 
establishments.  The  hold  that  Eastern  Christianity 
has  upon  Jerusalem  is  particularly  striking.  The 
Russian  or  Greek  church  is  if  anything  more  largely 
represented  than  the  Roman  Catholic  or  Protestant, 
and  thousands  of  Russians,  chiefly  of  the  peasant 
class,  come  yearly  to  Jerusalem,  many  of  them 

1  See  Zangwill’s  charming  and  pathetic  story,  “To  Die  in 
Jerusalem,”  in  his  volume  They  that  Walk  in  Darkness,  as  an 
illustration  of  the  strength  of  this  magnet. 


Palestine  of  To-Day 


103 


wandering  on  foot  for  long  stretches  to  assure  their 
eternal  salvation  by  immersion  in  the  sacred  waters 
of  the  Jordan.  Christian  pilgrims  from  France, 
Spain,  Italy  and  other  countries  are  constantly  pass¬ 
ing  up  and  down  through  the  land. 

There  is  scarcely  a  European  country  that  is  not 
represented  in  the  permanent  Christian  population 
of  Palestine.  Among  the  circa  150,000  Christians, 
we  find  Russians,  English,  French,  Germans,  Span¬ 
iards,  Portuguese,  Greeks,  Italians,  Dutch,  Swedes, 
Swiss,  Poles,  Bohemians,  Abyssinians,  and  so  on. 
There  is  an  American  colony  in  Jerusalem  which 
was  founded  by  a  Chicago  woman  some  sixty  years 
ago,  and  to-day  the  children  of  the  third  generation 
feel  strongly  the  attachment  to  the  soil.  Similarly, 
in  the  Mohammedan  population  of  Palestine,  about 
500,000,  all  sections  of  the  Islamic  world,  Egypt, 
Arabia,  Asia  Minor,  Persia,  Turkey,  are  repre¬ 
sented.  The  predominating  Arabic  speaking  popu¬ 
lation  are  the  direct  descendants  of  those  who  have 
been  in  possession  of  the  soil  for  many,  many  cen¬ 
turies.  If,  therefore,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  an 
historical  claim  to  the  land,  the  claim  of  the  Moham¬ 
medan  natives  of  Palestine  rests  on  as  substantial 
a  basis  as  that  of  either  Jews  or  Christians,  as  Pro¬ 
fessor  George  Adam  Smith,  the  most  distinguished 


104  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

authority  on  Palestine  past  and  present,  points  out.1 
The  Jewish  population,  while  steadily  increasing 
through  the  growth  of  the  Zionist  colonies  in  Pales¬ 
tine  and  other  new-comers  (chiefly  to  Jerusalem), 
is  the  smallest  of  all,  estimated  at  about  80,000. 

It  is  evident  that  this  position  which  Palestine 
has  acquired  must  form  the  point  of  departure  for 
the  reorganization  of  the  country,  now  that  the 
pressure  of  Turkish  rule,  or  rather  misrule,  has  been 
removed.  If  the  trend  of  the  history  of  the  Jews 
during  the  past  two  millenniums  points  to  their  work¬ 
ing  out  their  destinies  in  the  lands  through  which 
they  are  scattered,  the  changes  which  have  come 
over  Palestine  during  this  same  period  point  with 
equal  clearness  to  the  organization  of  a  State  based 
on  a  mixture  of  nationalities  and  certainly  not  on 
a  single  nationality  as  the  controlling  element. 
Palestine  has  become  what  some  of  the  ancient 
Plebrew  Prophets  envisaged 

“  And  peoples  shall  flow  unto  it, 

And  many  nations  shall  go  and  say : 

Come,  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  Yahweh.,,  2 

The  dream  has  not  been  fulfilled  in  the  manner  that 
the  Prophet  had  in  mind,  but  yet  in  a  spiritual  and 

1  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land,  p.  56. 

2  Micah  4,  2,  and  Isaiah  2,  2. 


Palestine  of  To-Day  105 

in  its  highest  sense,  it  is  true  that,  as  he  goes  on  to 
say, 

“  Out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law, 

And  the  word  of  Yahweh  from  Jerusalem,” 

for  Western  and  Eastern  civilizations  alike  have  re¬ 
ceived  their  inspiration  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Prophets  and  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles.  Palestine 
has  become  an  intra-national  possession.  To  set 
up  in  the  face  of  so  momentous  a  fact  the  claim  of 
a  single  group,  because  they  held  the  land  for  some 
centuries  by  virtue  of  forcible  conquest  some  3000 
years  ago,  is  not  only  to  ignore  the  equally  impor¬ 
tant  fact  that  this  group  lost  it  again  through  re¬ 
conquest  by  others,  but  that  the  associations  which 
have  since  grown  up  around  the  country  are  of  such 
a  character  as  to  set  aside  any  claims  based  on  a  sup¬ 
posed  poetical  or  historical  justice.  Such  a  claim 
cannot  be  defined  otherwise  than  as  a  misdirected 
sentimental  appeal,  which  can  only  serve  to  illustrate 
the  mischief  that  must  result  when  an  attempt  is 
made  to  convert  a  fine  sentiment  into  a  political 
movement.  Fanaticism  will  generally  be  found  to 
be  the  outcome  of  a  misdirected  sentimental  appeal, 
^  and  we  may  expect  to  see  the  flames  of  fanaticism 
burst  forth  from  all  sides,  if  the  attempt  is  made  now 


io 6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

or  at  any  future  time  to  make  Palestine  officially  a 
Jewish  State. 

Those  who  have  visited  the  country  will  testify  to 
the  strong  feelings  of  mutual  animosity  among  the 
three  classes  of  inhabitants,  which  the  Turkish  gov¬ 
ernment  did  little  or  nothing  to  moderate.  It  is 
idle  to  close  our  eyes  to  this  fact,  so  obvious  to  the 
traveller  in  Palestine,  and  yet  in  the  discussions  of 
Zionism  this  aspect  of  the  situation  is  rarely  touched 
upon.  I  wish  to  emphasize  it  here  as  one  of  the 
most  serious  objections  to  the  practical  execution 
of  the  aims  of  the  political  Zionists,  and  that  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  this  animosity,  extending  even  to  bitter 
rivalry  among  Christian  sects,  suggests  a  totally 
different  solution  for  the  reorganization  of  Palestine 
under  the  new  conditions  created  by  its  having  been 
wrested  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Turks.  The  world 
is  weary  of  strife  and  bitter  rivalries  and  hostilities 
that  eat  at  the  vitals  of  our  civilization.  What  will 
have  been  gained  by  the  victory  over  Germany,  if  in 
the  settlement  of  the  problems  that  confront  the 
world,  we  introduce  a  factor  that  will  lead  to  fur¬ 
ther  strife,  that  will  accentuate  hostilities  instead 
of  soothing  them,  that  will  keep  the  world  in  an 
insecure  state  instead  of  advancing  at  least  some 
degrees  in  the  direction  of  the  establishment  of  bet- 


Palestine  of  To-Day  107 

ter  feelings  among  mankind,  on  which  basis  alone 
an  enduring  peace  can  be  hoped  for  ? 

Voices  in  protest  have  already  been  raised  by 
Mohammedans  and  Christians  in  Palestine  and 
Syria  against  the  aims  of  the  Zionists  to  usurp,  as 
they  regard  it,  the  control  of  Palestine.  According 
to  reliable  reports  a  delegation  of  Mohammedans 
from  Palestine  came  to  England  about  a  year  ago  to 
lay  their  protest  before  the  English  government. 
The  Syrian  National  Society  has  published  a  pam¬ 
phlet,  “  Syria  for  the  Syrians,”  a  section  of  which 
is  devoted  to  the  Zionist  danger.1  These  protests 
may  be  regarded  as  symptoms  of  the  genuine  storm 
that  may  be  expected  if  the  possibility  of  carrying 
out  the  political  aims  of  the  Zionists  should  come 
within  the  range  of  realization. 

I  wish,  however,  to  put  the  objection  to  political 
Zionism  on  higher  grounds  than  mere  expediency, 
or  even  on  higher  grounds  than  the  fear  of  the  re¬ 
sults  that  will  follow  upon  a  step  that  would  serve 
to  check  the  growth  of  more  amicable  relations 
among  the  adherents  of  different  faiths  in  the  Holy 
Land.  The  aim  to  recognize  Palestine  as  a  Jewish 

1 H.  L.  Katibah,  Syria  for  the  Syrians  (Syrian  National 
Bulletin,  Volume  I,  No.  9,  February  28,  1919). 

See  also  the  excellent  article  of  Herbert  Adams  Gibbons  in 
the  Century  Magazine  for  January,  1919. 


108  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

State  runs  counter  to  the  trend  of  Palestinian  history, 
which  points  distinctly  to  its  reorganization  on  the 
modern  democratic  basis  of  government  which  re¬ 
places  the  older  idea  of  a  nation  based  on  a  single 
nationality,  by  a  larger  conception  of  a  national  unit 
formed  of  various  nationalities.  The  presence  of 
so  many  nationalities  in  Palestine  of  to-day  is  the  all- 
sufficient  argument  in  favor  of  creating  a  Palestin¬ 
ian  State  —  not  a  Jewish  State  any  more  than  a 
Mohammedan  or  a  Christian  State,  or  an  Anglo- 
Saxon  or  a  Gallic  or  Teutonic  State.  A  Jewish 
State,  no  matter  on  how  broad  a  basis  it  may  be  con¬ 
stituted,  necessarily  involves  the  older  conception  of 
a  nation  based  on  a  single  nationality.  Where  con¬ 
ditions  exist  which  suggest  such  a  political  form, 
a  single  nationality  forms  the  natural  point  of  de¬ 
parture,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  even  there,  it  en¬ 
counters  difficulties  in  the  present  age  of  close  inter¬ 
communication  and  constant  shiftings  of  population, 
which  are  forcing  such  States  to  a  recognition  of 
the  larger  principle  of  a  national  unit,  not  limited 
to  a  single  nationality.  But  where  as  in  Palestine 
the  conditions  definitely  preclude  a  State  of  a  single 
nationality,  except  by  the  forcible  submission  of 
other  nationalities  already  represented,  it  is  an  injus¬ 
tice  to  give  the  preference  to  any  single  group  even  if 


io9 


Palestine  of  To-Day 

such  a  group  should  constitute  the  majority.  Now 
since  a  Jewish  State  is  devoid  of  any  meaning  un¬ 
less  it  means  the  acceptance  of  the  idea  for  Palestine 
of  the  domination  by  a  single  nationality,  it  follows 
that  even  if  the  rest  of  the  population  be  accorded 
equal  political  rights,  a  Jewish  State  without  such 
domination  would  mean  nothing  at  all,  would  be 
an  empty  sound,  a  formal  acknowledgment  of  a 
purely  academic  character  to  satisfy  a  clannish  sense 
of  pride. 

Any  one  can  become  a  Palestinian,  as  any  person 
can  become  an  American  or  an  Englishman,  by  ob¬ 
taining  nationalization  papers  and  swearing  alle¬ 
giance  to  the  principles  of  the  country,  but  no  one  can 
become  a  Jew  except  by  a  profession  or  an  adherence 
to  a  certain  faith.  Even  the  most  ardent  political 
Zionists  will  not  deny  this  contention,  and  since  the 
Zionists  also  claim  that  Zionism  is  not  a  religious 
movement,  they  surely  do  not  contemplate  making 
converts  to  Judaism  in  the  proposed  Jewish  State. 
Plow,  then,  is  it  possible  to  organize  a  State  in  this 
democratic  age,  which  by  its  name  sets  up  a  barrier 
to  citizenship  that  can  only  be  overcome  by  a  re¬ 
ligious  test?  A  Jewish  State,  by  a  logic  which  we 
cannot  escape,  necessarily  limits  citizenship  in  the 
full  sense  to  a  definitely  prescribed  group,  precisely 


1 1 o  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

as  in  ancient  Greece  only  a  Greek  by  birth  or  by 
affiliation  through  marriage  with  a  Greek  could  be 
a  Greek  citizen,  and  as  in  the  mediaeval  Christian 
States  of  Europe  only  one  who  professed  Chris¬ 
tianity  could  have  all  the  rights  of  citizenship. 
Even  marriage  with  a  Jewess  does  not  make  one  a 
Jew,  any  more  than  marriage  with  a  Jew  makes 
the  woman  a  Jewess.  A  Jewish  State  under  the 
most  liberal  possible  government  sets  up  this  bar¬ 
rier,  whether  we  express  it  in  terms  of  religion  or 
of  nationality.  As  a  writer  has  pithily  put  it,  “  if 
it  be  Jewish,  it  cannot  be  a  State;  if  it  be  a  State! 
it  cannot  be  Jewish.”  1 

Reference  is  sometimes  made  in  the  discussion  of 
this  dilemma  to  the  liberal  spirit  of  the  Priestly 
Code,  as  a  proof  that  a  Jewish  State  is  historically 
bound  to  be  organized  on  a  broad  policy.  The  Code 
says  explicitly  that  there  shall  be  “  one  law  for  the 
stranger  and  the  native.”  2  That  principle  involves 
a  notable  advance  over  conditions  prevailing  gen¬ 
erally  in  antiquity,  and  we  should  respect  this  broad 
outlook  of  the  Code,3  as  due  to  the  new  religious 

1  Israel  Abrahams,  “Palestine  and  Jewish  Nationality,”  in 
the  Hibbert  Journal  for  April,  1918,  p.  458. 

-Exodus  12,  49;  also  Numbers  9,  14  in  a  slightly  variant 
wording. 

3  The  two  passages  form  part  of  the  Priestly  Code  which 
was  promulgated  in  the  post-exilic  period. 


Ill 


Palestine  of  To-Day 

spirit  introduced  by  the  Prophets.  But  note  that  the 
Code  still  divides  the  citizens  into  two  classes,  the 
native  and  the  ger,  as  the  technical  term  reads,  and 
which  means  originally  a  “  sojourner.”  Once  a  ger 
always  a  ger  is  still  the  principle  underlying  the 
Code.  The  ger  can  only  become  a  native,  even  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Priestly  Code,  by  accepting  the  re¬ 
ligious  faith  of  the  native.  The  Code  merely  says 
—  though  this  is  a  great  deal  —  that  the  ger  shall 
be  on  a  par  with  the  native  before  the  law;  but  it 
does  not  state  that  he  is  to  be  a  fullfledged  citizen 
with  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  native.  It 
could  not  say  that  without  upsetting  the  foundation 
on  which  a  Jewish  theocratic  commonwealth,  as  set 
forth  in  the  Biblical  codes,  rests.  The  natives  must 
be  Tews,  and  neither  the  children  nor  the  grandchil¬ 
dren  of  the  ger  nor  the  great-grandchildren  can  be¬ 
come  natives,  any  more  than  he  can  become  a  native. 
There  is  a  limit  beyond  which  even  so  liberal  a  Code 
as  the  Priestly  compilation  could  not  go  without 
breaking  the  bond  between  religion,  nationality  and 
citizenship  which  is  implied  throughout. 

Zionists  will,  therefore,  find  it  to  be  of  little  avail 
to  give  the  assurance  that  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  Mohammedan  and  Christian  inhabitants  of 
Palestine  would  not  be  interfered  with.  The  pro- 


1 12  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

test  is  against  the  principle  involved  in  placing  the 
control  of  a  country  in  the  hands  of  any  particular 
group.  The  recent  war  was  waged  to  establish  the 
principle  that  a  country  belongs  to  all  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  who  live  in  it.  The  Jews  who  have  suffered 
most  from  the  undemocratic  regulation  of  govern¬ 
ments  in  former  ages,  and  who  still  suffer  in  those 
countries  in  which  democracy  has  not  yet  secured 
a  definite  foothold,  would  cut  a  sorry  figure  indeed 
at  the  present  juncture  in  the  world’s  affairs  if  they, 
the  first  champions  of  religious  liberty,  should  ap¬ 
pear  in  advocacy  of  a  plan  which  is  based  upon  the 
old  principle  of  organizing  a  State  on  the  basis  of  the 
accidental  factor  of  birth  or  creed,  or  what  is  even 
worse  on  both  factors.  Instead  of  welding  the 
various  ethnic  elements  of  Palestine  into  a  political 
whole,  under  the  conditions  which  would  be  created 
by  a  Jewish  State,  the  policy  would  necessarily  result 
in  keeping  the  various  elements  separate  from  one 
another ;  and  that  is  contrary  to  the  democratic 
spirit  of  popular  government. 

It  is  not  to  the  point  to  argue,  in  reply  to  this,  as 
political  Zionists  do,  that  the  Jewish  State  actually 
proposes  to  extend  the  full  rights  of  citizenship  to 
all,  irrespective  of  creed,  race,  descent  or  even  sex. 
They  point  with  satisfaction  to  the  first  plank  in  the 


Palestine  of  To-Day 


ii3 


Zionistic  platform  adopted  by  the  American  Zion¬ 
ists  in  June  1918,  which  emphasizes  this  broad 
definition  of  citizenship.  No  one  questions,  of 
course,  the  good  faith  of  the  political  Zionists  m 
thus  placing  themselves  on  a  sound  democratic  basis, 
but  the  point  is  that  they  contradict  the  principle  of 
their  platform  the  moment  they  combine  the  ad¬ 
jective  “  Jewish  ”  with  “State.”  The  adjective 
and  noun  do  not  agree ;  they  are  mutually  exclusive. 
The  Jewish  State  can  protect  the  rights  of  all  citi¬ 
zens  irrespective  of  their  nationality.  It  can  toler¬ 
ate  them.  It  can  give  them  large  privileges,  but 
how  can  such  a  State  possibly  give  them  full  rights 
of  citizenship,  when  the  very  name  of  the  State  im¬ 
plies  a  government  organized  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
nationality  and  controlled  by  that  nationality.  Or, 
if  you  choose,  you  can  put  it  in  this  way  how  can 
it  a  State  remain  Jewish  if  it  abandons  the  basis  upon 
Which  alone  it  has  any  meaning?  Will  not  the  re- 
suiting  condition  be  precisely  that  of  which  many 
Jews  complain  even  in  countries  in  which  they  en¬ 
joy  full  political  rights,  that  they  are  merely  pro¬ 
tected  and  tolerated  and  given  certain  privileges 
without  being  regarded  as  forming  an  integral  part 
of  the  country?  Will  not  those  in  Palestine  who 
do  not  belong  to  the  Jewish  nationality  find  them- 


1 14  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

selves  precisely  in  this  position  of  not  forming  an 
integral  part  of  the  country?  If  the  principle  is 
wrong  in  one  case,  it  is  equally  wrong  in  the  other. 
I  do  not  see  any  escape  from  such  a  conclusion. 
The  principle  is  wrong,  for  a  modern  democratic 
State  cannot  recognize  any  distinctions  among  its 
citizens  because  of  varying  religious  proclivities  or 
because  of  varying  national  origins,  since  the  former 
is  a  purely  personal  factor  and  the  latter  an  acci¬ 
dental  one.  Such  distinctions  will  lead  to  internal 
dissensions  and,  what  is  more,  will  result  in  an  in¬ 
tolerable  segregation  of  groups  within  a  population. 

And  lastly  in  this  connection,  even  though  the 
political  Zionists  claim  that  their  movement  is  not 
religious  —  and  it  may  be  granted  that  it  is  not  — 
to  the  outside  world  the  term  Jewish  carries  with 
it  a  religious  connotation.  You  cannot  escape  from 
that.  The  man  of  the  street  is  impatient  of  subtle 
distinctions.  To  him  the  term  Jewish  means  one 
who  by  birth  or  by  conviction  belongs  to  a  certain 
faith.  All  Jews  are  alike  to  him,  and  since,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  majority  of  those  Jews  who  are 
in  Palestine  or  who  will  go  there  will  also  be  Jews 
by  religion  and  not  merely  in  the  nationalistic  sense 
in  which  political  Zionists  wish  to  use  the  term,  a 
Jewish  State  would  necessarily  imply  some  kind  of 


Palestine  of  To-Day  115 

a  bond  between  religion  and  nationality,  precisely 
as  the  liberal  Priestly  Code  above  quoted  still  as¬ 
sumes  this  point  —  in  fact  takes  it  for  granted  as  a 
matter  of  course.  Will  the  Jews  who  have  settled 
in  Palestine  and  those  who  will  go  there  as  members 
of  the  religious  body,  strongly  attached  to  the  an¬ 
cestral  faith,  be  satisfied  to  have  an  absolute  separa¬ 
tion  from  church  and  state,  so  that  in  the  Jewish 
State  to  be  organized  there  will  be  no  laws  touching 
upon  religion  in  any  way?  Even  if  the  State  should 
be  organized  theoretically  on  the  basis  of  a  divorce 
between  religion  and  the  State,  would  not  Judaism 
in  a  Jewish  State  by  sheer  necessity  continue  to  pre¬ 
sent  precisely  that  double  aspect  of  a  religion  and  a 
nationality  which,  we  have  seen,  it  carried  with  it 
through  the  ages  until  in  modern  times  Reformed 
Tudaism  broke  the  thread?  The  Jewish  State  will, 
therefore,  mean,  even  from  the  standpoint  of  re¬ 
ligion,  a  step  backward,  a  reversion  to  the  condition 
which  interpreted  religion  in  terms  of  the  group. 
It  will  involve  a  step  back  to  a  condition  which  has 
been  found  to  be  incompatible  with  the  spirit  of  the 
aee.  The  State  if  formed  will  be  handicapped  at 
the  outset  by  this  close  and  inevitable  affiliation  with 
religion.  Even  if  the  State  should  not  suffer  from 
the  combination,  the  religion  will  be  checked  in  its 


1 1 6  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

natural  growth  and,  what  is  more,  the  Jews,  par¬ 
ticularly  the  nine-tenths  who  will  permanently  re¬ 
main  outside  of  Palestine,  will  suffer  by  being  placed 
in  an  anomalous  position.  The  Jewish  Question 
instead  of  being  solved,  as  the  Zionists  hope  through 
their  plan,  will  receive  a  new  complication.  It  is  to 
that  aspect  of  the  fallacy  of  political  Zionism  that 
in  the  concluding  section  I  now  turn. 


VIII 


POLITICAL  ZIONISM  AND  THE  JEWISH  QUESTION 

The  political  Zionists  appear  to  have  been  impressed 
by  the  opposition  which  the  proposition  to  convert 
Palestine  into  a  Jewish  State  has  aroused  among 
native  Mohammedans  and  Christians  as  well  as 
among  the  Jews  and  Christians  of  this  country, 
England  and  France,1  and  perhaps  also  by  the  logic 

i  In  England  a  “League  of  British  Jews”  led  by  such 
prominent  Englishmen  as  Claude  G.  Montefiore,  Israel  Abra¬ 
hams,  and  Lord  Swaythling  has  been  formed ;  in  the  United 
States  a  statement  setting  forth  objections  to  the  Jewish 
State  has  been  prepared  (see  the  Appendix),  and  with  the 
signatures  of  300  prominent  American  Jews  attached,  repre¬ 
senting  all  parts  of  the  United  States  and  men  in  all  pro¬ 
fessions  and  in  the  various  walks  of  life,  has  been  forwarded 
to  the  Peace  Conference  through  President  Wilson.  In 
France  a  non-sectarian  Society  composed  of  Catholics,  Prot¬ 
estants  and  Jews  has  been  organized  known  as  Friends  of 
the  Holy  Land,”  which  likewise  has  taken  a  definite  stand 
against  the  aim  of  the  political  Zionists.  This  organization 
has  republished  in  English  and  French  the  article  of  Herbert 
Adams  Gibbons  which  appeared  in  the  January  number  of  the 
Century  Magazine  and  which  set  forth  in  clear  and  vigorous 
language,  from  the  standpoint  of  a  student  of  the  East,  the 
reasons  why  political  Zionism  is  unacceptable. 

11 7 


1 1 8  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

of  the  objections  urged  by  such  eminent  authorities 
as  Sir  George  Adam  Smith  1  and  others  whose  gen¬ 
eral  sympathy  with  that  part  of  the  Zionistic  pro¬ 
gram  which  seeks  to  find  a  safe  homeland  for  Jew¬ 
ish  colonists  in  Palestine,  adds  weight  to  their  views. 
A  distinct  tendency  towards  the  modification  of  the 
political  program  of  the  Zionists  has  set  in.  It  is 
now  declared  by  those  qualified  to  speak  for  the 
Zionists  that  there  is  no  intention  at  present  of  ask¬ 
ing  that  Palestine  be  handed  over  to  the  Jews,  but 
only  that  assurances  be  given  of  non-interference 
with  the  movement  of  further  immigration  of  Jews 
to  that  country,  and  that  the  status  of  the  Jewish 
colonists  be  recognized  in  a  legal  form  so  as  to  se¬ 
cure  their  complete  protection  and,  I  suppose,  also, 
their  local  autonomy  —  to  which,  of  course,  there 
is  no  objection.  The  President  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Zionists  has  gone  even  further  and 
is  quoted  as  declaring  that  a  Jewish  State  for  the 
present  must  remain  a  dream,  to  be  realized  only 
when  the  Jews  shall  form  the  majority  in  Pales¬ 
tine.  This  position  seems  to  have  been  generally 

1  In  his  monograph  above  referred  to,  Syria  and  the  Holy 
Land,  pp.  52-57  (London,  1918).  See  also  an  able  article 
on  Zionism  by  Prof.  Kemper  Fullerton  of  Oberlin  College, 
in  the  Harvard  Theological  Review,  Vol.  X  (1917),  pp.  313- 
335- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  119 

accepted,  and  the  further  assurance  is  given  that  po¬ 
litical  Zionism  aims  to  take  over  the  affairs  of  the 
country  in  a  perfectly  natural  way  under  the  work¬ 
ings  of  the  law  of  the  majority.  One  hears  little 
at  present  of  the  point  that  Dr.  Herzl  pressed  so 
emphatically  in  his  “  Jewish  State,”  that  one  of  the 
aims  of  the  Jewish  State  was  to  act  as  a  powerful 
means,  through  the  channels  of  diplomacy,  in  exert¬ 
ing  pressure  over  governments  in  which  Jews  are 
subject  to  injustice  and  maltreatment.  Herzl  and 
his  followers  visualized  a  Jewish  State  which  would 
be  regarded  as  a  national  center  by  all  Jewry  with 
the  authority  to  speak  for  the  15  million  Jews  scat¬ 
tered  throughout  the  world.  The  Jewish  State 
!  would  be  the  mouthpiece  for  Jews  everywhere. 
This  dream,  it  appears,  has  been  shattered,  and  prop¬ 
erly  so,  for  it  soon  became  obvious  after  the  organi¬ 
zation  of  political  Zionism  that  the  movement  was 
not  going  to  unite  the  Jews  into  a  single  body.  Each 
succeeding  Jewish  Congress  showed  more  clearly 
than  its  predecessor  that  while  Zionism  did  form  a 
bond  sufficiently  strong  to  bring  together  for  the 
first  time  Jews  from  all  parts  of  the  Western  world, 
the  bond  lacked  the  element  of  permanency  because 
of  the  emphasis  upon  nationality,  which  the  subse¬ 
quent  course  of  events  showed  would  be  the  rock 


120  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

on  which  any  endeavor  to  unite  the  Jews  politically 
would  suffer  shipwreck.  It  is  instinctively  felt,  even 
if  it  cannot  be  satisfactorily  demonstrated  by  the 
great  body  of  Jews  in  those  lands  in  which  they  have 
become  assimilated  to  the  prevailing  political  and 
social  conditions,  in  countries  like  England,  France, 
United  States,  Italy,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark, 
Switzerland,  and  to  a  large  extent  even  in  Germany 
and  Austria,  that  in  some  way  the  appeal  to  Jewish 
nationalism  conflicts  with  the  complete  attachment 
for  the  nation  to  which  the  Jews,  living  in  any  of  the 
countries  named,  belong  and  should  belong.  Any 
political  interest  in  a  Jewish  State  established  else¬ 
where  would  have  a  taint  of  hyphenation  or  of  di¬ 
vided  allegiance.  I  do  not  speak  here  from  the 
point  of  view  of  policy,  nor  have  I  in  mind  the  fear 
of  arousing  a  suspicion  of  hyphenation,  but  from 
the  feeling  which  every  ioo  per  cent  American, 
Englishman  or  Frenchman  would  naturally  and 
spontaneously  harbor  that  beyond  a  sentimental  or 
historical  interest  in  any  other  country  but  his  own, 
whether  because  he  formerly  belonged  to  that  coun¬ 
try  or  had  associations  with  it  that  have  attached 
him  to  it,  he  must  not  yield  to  the  temptation  to 
look  upon  such  a  country  as  a  kind  of  second 
home.  It  is  impossible  to  belong  to  two  countries, 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  12 1 

and  if  one  makes  the  effort,  complete  attachment  to 
one  must  necessarily  be  impaired.  “  Allegiance 
must  be  perfect  —  cannot  be  divided.  Either  a 

Palestinian  or  an  American.”  1 

Involuntarily  and  in  subtle  fashion  one’s  Ameri¬ 
canism,  to  take  our  own  country  as  an  example,  is 
affected  by  a  divided  attachment  of  any  character. 
This  may  not  go  to  the  extent  of  affecting  one’s 
patriotic  duties,  but  a  divided  allegiance  will  affect 
the  spirit  in  which  one  carries  out  one’s  duties.  The 
mental  concentration  on  the  one  and  only  country 
to  which  individuals  should  feel  themselves  as  be¬ 
longing  would  be  lacking.  This  lack  is  injurious 
and  will  prevent  one  from  responding  spontaneously 
to  the  pulsations  of  the  political  and  social  life  about 
him. 

The  recent  experience  through  which  this  country 
has  passed  has  shown  the  dangers  inherent  in  the 
encouragement  of  any  kind  of  hyphenation.  The 
trying  position  in  which  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
loyal  American  citizens  were  placed  because  in  days 
of  peace  and  in  an  unsuspecting  manner  they  had 
permitted  their  feelings  for  Germany,  due  to  senti¬ 
mental  or  personal  attachment,  unbounded  sway, 
should  serve  as  a  warning  now  that  peace  has  come 
again,  to  avoid  a  repetition  of  such  a  condition. 

1  Felix  Adler,  Nationalism  and  Zionism,  p.  14  (an  address 
published  by  the  American  Ethical  Union,  New  York,  1919). 


122  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

We  were  obliged  to  go  to  war  with  Germany  be¬ 
cause  by  her  policy  and  by  her  military  methods, 
she  represented  a  menace  to  the  freedom  of  the 
world.  This  occasioned  a  painful  struggle  in  the 
hearts  of  those  who,  without  being  conscious  of  any 
hyphenation,  yet  were  the  unfortunate  victims  of 
a  divided  allegiance;  and  this  despite  the  fact  that 
it  was  a  long  and  short  division,  and  the  part  they 
gave  to  Germany  was  only  a  small  percentage.  The 
present  advocates  of  political  Zionism  appear  to 
recognize  how  dangerous  it  is  in  the  present  temper 
of  the  world  to  play  with  such  combustible  material 
as  is  involved  in  the  question  of  allegiance  to  the 
country  to  which  one  belongs.  Accordingly,  it  is 
declared  that  the  Jews  remaining  outside  of  Pales¬ 
tine  will  not  be  affected  by  the  organization  of  a 
small  Jewish  State.  But  is  that  true?  Will  the 
nine-tenths  of  the  Jews,  who  will  not  technically  be¬ 
long  to  the  Jewish  nation,  escape  the  implication  that 
they  nevertheless  form  part  of  a  separate  Jewish 
nationality,  and  will  not  this  necessarily  affect  the 
status  of  the  nine-tenths?  A  moment’s  reflection 
will  show  that  the  Jewish  State  will  again  play  di¬ 
rectly  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  only  too  eager 
to  seize  upon  such  a  weapon  to  justify  their  social 
prejudice  and  deeper  hostility,  precisely  as  the  con- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  123 

elusion  drawn  by  Herzl  and  his  followers  that  the 
feeling  towards  the  Jews  was  due  to  their  being  a 
separate  nationality  —  an  alien  element  in  the  body 
politic  of  European  countries  —  appeared  to  justify 
the  contention  of  the  German  and  Austrian  anti- 
Semites.  “  What  of  it,”  political  Zionists  say,  in 
reply,  “  if  those  who  will  under  any  circumstances 
maintain  their  feelings  against  Jews  are  given 
an  excuse  that  will  be  recognized  as  a  mere 
flimsy  pretense?”  The  answer  is  that  the  situa¬ 
tion  created  by  the  organization  of  a  Jewish  State, 
no  matter  how  small,  with  the  necessary  em¬ 
phasis  on  a  separate  Jewish  nationality  as  its  raison 
d'etre,  will  enhance  the  difficulties  of  the  Jews  all 
over  the  world  in  combating  the  social  prejudice 
or  other  forms  of  hostility  that  exist  or  that  may 
arise.  It  will  retard  the  political  assimilation  of 
the  Jews  even  in  more  advanced  countries  in  which 
reactionary  movements  like  anti-Semitism  have  left 
their  mark.  It  will  certainly  create  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  those  who  are  laboring  to  secure  full  political 
recognition  for  Jews  in  Russia,  Poland  and  Rou- 
mania.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  once  more  that  the 
average  person  has  little  patience  with  subtle  dis¬ 
tinctions.  He  will  not  be  apt  to  draw  a  line  be¬ 
tween  a  Jew  naturalized  as  a  citizen  of  the  United 


124  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

States,  England  or  France,  and  one  who  belongs  to 
a  Jewish  State  in  Palestine  —  nor  would  he  pay 
much  heed  to  the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  Jews 
—  at  least  nine-tenths  —  would  not  belong  to  that 
State.  That  the  proposed  Jewish  State  will  look  for 
support  to  Jews  living  outside  of  Palestine  —  not 
only  for  financial  aid  but  for  moral  support  and 
sympathy  —  will  appear  to  justify  the  conclusion 
that  Jews  everywhere  harbor  a  peculiar  attachment 
towards  the  nationalistic  one-tenth  associated  with 
Palestine;  and  indeed  many  will  undoubtedly  have 
such  an  attachment.  The  term  American  Jew  sug¬ 
gests  no  hyphenation,  any  more  than  American  Cath¬ 
olic  or  American  Protestant.  It  merely  connotes  a 
religious  affiliation,  or  an  association  connected  with 
the  accidental  factor  of  birth  and  descent,  just  as 
American  Irish  or  American  German  expresses  the 
national  origin  of  the  individual  in  question;  but 
the  existence  of  a  Jewish  State  will  invert  the  po¬ 
sition  of  the  two  terms.  The  American  Jew  will 
become  the  Jewish  American,  and  this  is  a  hyphen 
precisely  of  the  same  objectionable  character  as 
the  German-American  proved  to  be  in  the  recent 
war. 

Are  political  Zionists  quite  sure  that  in  case  of  a 
conflict  between  the  country  of  their  birth  or  adop- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  125 

tion  and  Palestine  they  will  not  to  any  degree  be 
influenced  by  the  possible  hyphenation? 

It  is  quite  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  a 
condition  may  arise,  even  under  the  rule  of  the 
world  by  a  League  of  Nations,  when  through  po¬ 
litical  complications  the  proposed  Jewish  State  may 
find  itself  in  opposition  to  some  other  state  or  vice 
versa,  some  state  will  have  a  quarrel  with  the 
Jewish  State.  Such  a  contingency  might  place  the 
Jews  everywhere  in  a  most  uncomfortable  position 
to  say  the  least.  No  doubt  they  will  give  their  al¬ 
legiance  to  the  land  in  which  they  dwell  but  with 
many  it  may  involve  a  struggle  to  do  so,  and  this  ele¬ 
ment  will  at  least  be  open  to  a  suspicion  affecting 
all  the  others,  as  in  the  recent  war  American  citi¬ 
zens  of  German  birth  or  remote  German  origin  were 
put  in  the  suspect  class.  They  had  to  give  proof  of 
their  loyalty  instead  of  such  loyalty  being  taken  for 
granted,  and  many  innocent  people  suffered  because 
of  the  open  or  disguised  disloyalty,  or  even  of  the 
indiscretions  of  a  few.  Can  we  be  quite  sure  that 
in  case  of  such  a  conflict  as  is  here  hypothecated 
and  which  at  any  time  may  arise,  some  Jews  having 
sympathy  with  their  fellows  may  not  commit  indis¬ 
cretions  reflecting  on  all?  The  world  has  always 
been  disposed  to  generalize  in  regard  to  the  Jews, 


126  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

and  human  nature  does  not  change  perceptibly  from 
century  to  century. 

Now  look  at  a  situation  that  will  certainly  arise 
if  the  Jewish  State  is  formed.  What  attitude  will 
that  State  take  towards  political  Zionists  who  are 
Germans  or  Austrians?  Dr.  Herzl  himself  was  an 
Austrian,  and  some  of  the  most  prominent  and  effi¬ 
cient  leaders  of  the  movement  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  war  were  to  be  found  in  the  lands  of  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Powers.  The  center  of  the  Zionist  organization 
was  at  one  time  in  Germany.  If  Dr.  Herzl,  the 
founder  of  political  Zionism,  were  alive  to-day,  is  it 
conceivable  that  with  the  present  attitude  of  the 
world  towards  Germany  and  Austria  he  would  be 
permitted  to  go  to  Palestine  to  take  part  in  the  or¬ 
ganization  of  a  Jewish  State,  the  idea  of  which  he 
called  into  being?  Palestine,  it  is  generally  con¬ 
ceded,  will  be  placed  under  the  mandatory  power  of 
Great  Britain.  What  will  be  the  natural  attitude 
of  that  government  in  regard  to  German  and  Aus¬ 
trian  Jews  who  wish  to  settle  in  Palestine?  Would 
Great  Britain  be  criticized  if  she  decided  to  shut  out 
all  immigrants  from,  Germany  and  Austria  as  well 
as  from  Turkey  (or  what  remains  of  Turkey)  and 
Bulgaria  for  a  considerable  number  of  years?  Will 
she  even  after  this  prohibition  is  removed  be  likely 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  127 

to  allow  Germans  and  Austrians  to  take  part  in  the 
political  life  of  a  country  under  her  direction? 
German  influence  was  particularly  strong  in  Pales¬ 
tine  prior  to  the  war,  and  even  the  Zionists  had  their 
struggle  with  the  German  brethren  who  wanted  to 
force  the  introduction  of  German  into  the  training 
school  for  teachers  in  Jaffa,1  and  in  which  they  were 
aided  by  the  German  Consul  General.  This  was  in 
1913.  What,  in  view  of  this  incident  and  of  all 
that  has  happened  since  1914,  will  be  the  attitude 
of  the  political  Zionists  themselves  towards  German 
and  Austrian  Zionists  who  form  such  a  considerable 
contingent  —  in  fact  next  to  Russians,  the  strongest 
contingent.  The  Zionists  will  probably  be  wise 
enough  not  to  try  to  force  the  issue,  but  will  prefer 
to  place  themselves  in  an  anomalous  position  by  de¬ 
claring  that  the  Jewish  State  for  the  present  must 
taboo  Jews  from  the  very  lands  in  which  the  move¬ 
ment  took  definite  shape.  Here,  then,  we  have  im¬ 
mediately  a  complication  that  may  be  taken  as  a 
sample  of  the  kind  of  difficulties  that  will  arise 
through  the  endeavor  to  hold  up  the  Jews  as  form¬ 
ing  a  distinct  nationality  to  be  welded  into  a  political 

1  See  a  brief  account  of  this  struggle  in  an  article  on  “  The 
Educational  Institutions  of  Palestine,”  in  Kadimah  (New 
York  American  Federation  of  Zionists,  1918),  pp.  95-100. 


128  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

unit  composed  of  a  single  nationality.  If  a  quarrel 
were  to  break  out  between  England  and  Russia,  dur¬ 
ing  the  period  of  the  exercise  of  the  mandatory 
power  by  Great  Britain  over  Palestine,  it  might  sim¬ 
ilarly  lead  to  the  exclusion  of  Russian  Jews,  to 
whom  the  Zionistic  movement  is  due. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  the  fourteen  million  Jews 
who  will  always  live  outside  of  Palestine  cannot  af¬ 
ford  to  have  themselves  thus  placed  in  an  anomalous 
and  risky  position  by  the  one-tenth  who  may  choose 
to  regard  themselves  as  a  national  body.  They  will 
object  to  a  small  minority  representing  itself  as  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  which  the  rest  of  the  world  will 
naturally  assume  to  have  the  authority  to  speak  for 
all.  The  existence  of  such  a  tiny  Jewish  State 
representing  at  the  most  one-tenth  of  all  the  Jews, 
therefore,  so  far  from  helping  to  solve  the  Jewish 
Question,  will  only  succeed  in  complicating  it  in 
various  directions.  In  the  first  place  it  will  arouse 
the  opposition  of  the  natives  of  Palestine  and  of  the 
adjoining  Syria  who  will  resent  being  pushed  to  the 
wall;  secondly  it  will  create  hyphenated  Jews  all 
over  the  world;  and  thirdly  it  will  place  Jews  out¬ 
side  of  Palestine  in  a  position  that  will  oblige  them 
in  self-defense  to  present  a  decided  attitude  of  oppo¬ 
sition  to  their  fellows  who  insist  upon  their  sepa- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  129 

rate  nationalism.  Political  Zionism,  instead  of 
serving  to  unite  the  Jews,  will  create  further  splits 
of  the  most  serious  character,  and  the  upshot  of  the 
movement  will  be  to  keep  alive  the  spirit  of  opposi¬ 
tion  in  those  lands  in  which  the  Jews  are  treated 
as  aliens  without  political  rights. 

Surely  the  most  important  problem  for  Jews  at 
present  interested  in  the  welfare  of  their  brethren, 
more  important  even  than  the  encouragement  of  the 
colonization  of  Palestine,  is  to  secure  for  those  liv¬ 
ing  in  such  large  numbers  in  countries  like  Russia, 
Roumania  and  Poland,  constituting  almost  one-half 
of  all  the  Jews  in  the  world,  complete  rights  and  du¬ 
ties  of  citizenship,  both  because  such  rights  are  de¬ 
manded  by  the  conditions  under  which  modern 
states  are  organized,  and  as  a  protection  against  in¬ 
dignities  and  sufferings  to  which  they  are  constantly 
exposed  in  the  countries  in  which  they  live,  but  which 
they  are  precluded  from  regarding  as  their  country. 
It  is  gratifying  to  see  that  both  in  Poland  and  Rou¬ 
mania  a  decided  disposition  exists  among  the  lead¬ 
ers  in  favor  of  granting  equal  rights  to  the  Jewish 
population,  and  the  President  of  the  newly  organ¬ 
ized  Republic  of  Bohemia  has  come  out  strongly 
against  regarding  the  Jews  in  that  country  as  a 
separate  national  unit  The  Peace  Conference,  it  is 


130  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

hoped,  will  emphasize  the  necessity  for  all  the  newly 
organized  states  to  place  themselves  on  the  principle 
of  equal  political  rights  to  all  the  inhabitants.  But 
it  must  be  obvious  that  this  movement  will  be  hin¬ 
dered  if  the  Jews  themselves  raise  the  cry  that  they 
represent  a  separate  nationalistic  unit  in  the  very 
populations  among  which  they  live.  It  is  to  be 
particularly  regretted  that  the  recent  so-called  Jew¬ 
ish  Congress  held  in  Philadelphia  paved  the  way 
for  a  possible  reactionary  tendency  by  emphasizing 
“  Jewish  nationalism  ”  not  only  in  connection  with 
the  Palestinian  problem,  but  as  applicable  also  to 
the  countries  of  Western  Europe.  The  attitude  of 
some  of  those  who  attended  this  Congress  as  dele¬ 
gates  was  amazingly  frank  in  laying  the  stress  on 
“  national  ”  rights  of  the  Jews  in  countries  outside 
of  Palestine  instead  of  on  equal  rights.1  No  Ameri¬ 
can  delegate  at  the  congress  with  a  keen  feeling  of 
his  Americanism  can  possibly  have  approved  of  such 
an  un-American  spirit,  but  the  sentiment  voiced 
illustrates  the  direction  toward  which  political 
Zionism  drifts  as  the  result  of  the  emphasis  on 
nationalism.  It  is  a  serious  indictment  against  po- 

XA  declaration  issued  by  the  “National  Socialist”  Group 
of  Zionists  maintains  the  “  right  of  the  national  union  of 
Jews  in  all  countries  in  respect  to  education,  culture  and 
language.” 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  13 1 

litical  Zionism  that  the  principle  upon  which  it  rests 
leads  some  of  those  who  adhere  to  it  to  justify  the 
organization  of  the  Jews  as  a  separate  unit  in  other 
countries  than  Palestine.  Dividing  a  population 
into  separate  nationalistic  units  instead  of  welding 
the  various  nationalities  into  a  single  nation  is  sub¬ 
versive  of  the  very  foundation  upon  which  democ¬ 
racy  rests.  There  is  no  greater  danger  to  democracy 
than  the  recognition  of  an  imperium  in  imperio. 
With  the  Jews  themselves  interpreting  their  status 
in  the  world  as  that  of  a  separate  nationality,  there 
will  always  remain  a  Jewish  Question  and  it  will 
always  remain  unsolved. 

The  Jewish  Question !  What  is  the  Jewish  Ques¬ 
tion  but  the  struggle  to  secure  for  Jews  in  all  lands 
the  same  political  rights  as  their  fellow-citizens. 
That  is  the  only  solution  possible  because  the  only 
one  compatible  with  the  spirit  of  democracy  that 
was  ushered  into  the  Western  world  at  the  close  of 
the  eighteenth  century  and  that  has,  despite  all  re¬ 
actionary  efforts,  despite  all  checks  and  hindrances, 
made  steady  progress.  The  improvement  in  the 
political  and  social  status  of  the  Jews  in  all  European 
countries  —  barring  a  few  exceptions  —  since  the 
new  spirit  set  in  furnishes  the  proof  that  the  line 
of  progress  has  been  steadily  upward.  Not  that 


132  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

this  improved  status  is  the  only  index  of  this  prog¬ 
ress,  but  it  is  one  of  the  indications  of  real  prog¬ 
ress  made  that  the  curve  marked  by  the  fortunes 
of  the  Jews  during  the  last  century  mounts  stead¬ 
ily.  Step  by  step  the  civic  disabilities  under  which 
the  Jews  labored  were  removed  in  most  of  the  states 
of  Europe,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  re¬ 
actionaries.  The  steady  march  of  democracy  has 
meant  the  growing  triumph  for  the  idea  underlying 
it,  and  it  is  this  triumph  that  has  made  for  the  po¬ 
litical  and  social  assimilation  of  Jews  in  one  country 
after  the  other,  until  to-day  it  is  taken  for  granted 
by  all  leaders  of  liberal  thought  that  equal  rights  to 
all  citizens  must  form  the  foundation  stone  on  which 
a  state  is  to  be  reared.  The  Jews  by  virtue  of  their 
survival  through  dark  ages  of  persecution  and  in¬ 
tolerance  are  the  living  witnesses  to  testify  to  the 
ultimate  failure  of  all  reactionary  tendencies. 

It  is  true  that  the  reactionary  spirit  has  not  been 
conquered  everywhere,  but  instead  of  fixing  our 
gaze  in  a  bewildered  attitude  on  reactionary  symp¬ 
toms,  we  should  rather  in  a  spirit  of  hope  and  en¬ 
couragement  base  our  judgment  of  the  future  of 
the  Jews  and  of  their  ultimate  destiny,  on  the  steady 
progress  in  their  civic  emancipation  during  the  past 
century  and  more.  The  spirit  of  democracy  has 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  133 

never  been  stronger  in  any  period  of  the  world’s 
history  than  at  the  close  of  this  war,  fought  to  safe¬ 
guard  democracy.  Even  the  extremes  to  which  the 
spirit  is  being  carried  in  some  countries,  reacting 
against  the  pressure  under  which  they  formerly  were 
cramped,  is  a  testimony  to  the  strength  of  the  spirit. 
The  extravagances  and  the  abuses  will  correct  them¬ 
selves  in  time.  Surely  this  is  not  the  moment  to 
raise  the  cry  of  despair  because  difficulties  exist 
which  should  call  forth  one’s  courage  to  surmount 
them,  because  reactionary  forces  are  still  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  assert  themselves  and  which  it  should  be  our 
aim  to  overcome.  Even  while  recognizing  that  the 
woilds  progress  is  necessarily  slow,  at  times  pain¬ 
fully  slow,  the  present  juncture  in  the  affairs  of 
men  and  of  nations  invites  us  to  turn  our  faces  for¬ 
ward  and  not  backward,  to  realize  more  decidedly 
than  ever  that  so  far  as  the  Jews  are  concerned 
their  place  is  in  the  seething  world  around  them, 
the  world  seething  with  fresh  life  and  enlarged 
hopes,  and  not  in  a  restricted  glorified  ghetto  which 
would  be  the  result  of  the  creation  of  a  tiny  Jewish 
State  by  a  tiny  minority  of  the  Jews. 

The  mere  fact  that  Palestine  can  never  hold  more 
than  a  small  minority  of  the  Jews  of  the  world  con¬ 
stitutes  by  itself  a  most  potent  argument  against  the 


134  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

creation  of  a  Jewish  State  even  if  it  were  desirable, 
as  it  also  shows  how  fallacious  it  is  to  seek  for  a 
solution  of  the  Jewish  Question  by  the  creation  of 
such  a  state.  Let  me  in  concluding  this  analysis 
set  forth  somewhat  more  explicitly  this  aspect  of 
the  Zionistic  movement. 

Political  Zionists  have  succeeded  by  virtue  of 
their  enthusiasm  in  creating  the  impression  that 
Palestine  would  have  room  for  several  million  Jews. 
Some  go  so  far  as  to  say  five  or  six  millions.  This 
is  an  entirely  misleading  view  and  needs  to  be  ex¬ 
posed.  Palestine  at  present  holds  a  population  es¬ 
timated  somewhere  between  600,000  and  700,000, 
of  which  about  60  per  cent  are  Mohammedans,  28 
per  cent  Christians,  and  12  per  cent  Jews.  On  the 
basis  of  a  careful  investigation  undertaken  by  a  com¬ 
mission  of  French  experts  sent  to  Palestine  during 
the  summer  of  1918,  and  which  included  Professor 
Sylvain  Levi,  the  distinguished  Orientalist  of  the 
College  de  France,  it  can  now  be  authoritatively 
stated  that,  including  improved  methods  of  agricul¬ 
ture  and  the  redemption  of  certain  arid  tracts,  there 
would  be  room  in  Palestine  proper  for  an  additional 
population  of  600,000.  That  would  mean  that  at 
the  utmost  Palestine  can  harbor  in  the  future  a  popu¬ 
lation  of  one  and  a  half  millions.  Beyond  that  the 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  135 

economic  pressure  on  a  too  thickly  settled  district  in 
proportion  to  its  ability  to  yield  support  would  cre¬ 
ate  misery  and  ruin.  Now,  assuming  that  the  ad¬ 
ditional  600,000  will  be  entirely  composed  of  Jews, 
this  would  give  a  maximum  of  700,000  Jewish  in¬ 
habitants  as  the  utmost  figure  without  driving 
the  600,000  Mohammedans  and  Christians  away. 
Since  immigration  to  Palestine  can  hardly  proceed 
more  rapidly  than  on  an  average  of  25,000  a  year, 
about  a  quarter  of  a  century  would  have  to  elapse 
before  the  Jewish  population  would  reach  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  being  in  a  majority;  and  according  to  the 
program  of  the  political  Zionists  the  Jewish  State  is 
not  to  be  called  into  existence  until  that  point  has 
been  reached  in  the  Jewish  population.  In  this  cal¬ 
culation,  however,  there  is  omitted  the  important  ele¬ 
ment  of  the  natural  growth  of  the  present  popula¬ 
tion  of  Palestine.  Despite  unfavorable  and  unsani¬ 
tary  conditions  of  life  in  a  large  part  of  the  country 
and  the  great  death  rate  among  children,  as  is  the 
case  throughout  all  the  neglected  portions  of  the 
Near  East,  the  increase  of  population  in  Palestine 
has  been  steady  though  naturally  not  large.  Under 
better  conditions  that  will  certainly  prevail  when 
Palestine  comes  under  the  supervision  of  the  man¬ 
datory  power  of  Great  Britain,  the  natural  increase 


136  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

in  population  will  grow  larger.  If  it  reaches  an 
average  of  only  two  per  cent  yearly  the  result  will 
be  that  the  full  contingent  of  600,000  additional  to 
the  population  will  be  contributed  in  large  part  by 
the  natives.  The  present  Jewish  population  of  Pal¬ 
estine  would  itself  become  a  factor  in  reducing  the 
possible  number  of  Jews  that  could  come  from  the 
outside  world  to  find  room  in  that  small  country. 
The  likelihood  of  the  Jews  ever  reaching  the  position 
of  being  in  a  decided  majority  is  thus  reduced  and 
the  great  difference  between  the  present  proportion, 
12  per  cent  as  against  88  per  cent  Mohammedans 
and  Christians  is  too  large  to  be  overcome  by  any 
normal  process.  The  alternative  is  to  drive  the  non- 
Jewish  population  out  of  the  country  (which,  of 
course,  the  political  Zionists  have  no  intention  of  do- 
to  force  them  out  by  economic  pressure, 
which  may  conceivably  take  place.  Either  pros¬ 
pect  is  not  pleasant  to  contemplate.  Let  us  assume 
that  through  superior  advantages  enjoyed  by  the 
Jews  who  come  to  Palestine  they  will  in  the  competi¬ 
tive  struggle  succeed  in  obtaining  control.  It  mat¬ 
ters  little  how  this  end  will  be  obtained.  Even  if  it 
should  come  by  the  most  perfectly  natural  process, 
the  feelings  of  the  natives  as  they  see  themselves 
driven  to  the  wall,  becoming  more  and  more  de- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  137 

pendent  upon  those  who  are  usurping  their  place,  will 
not  be  any  the  less  bitter  on  that  account.  The  re¬ 
action  of  such  a  situation  will  be  felt  by  the  Jews  all 
over  the  world.  It  is  assuredly  a  serious  matter  to 
propose  a  policy  which  must,  even  if  involuntarily, 
work  injustice  and  hardships  for  others  as  a  condi¬ 
tion  of  its  being  carried  out.  Mankind  looks  for¬ 
ward  hopefully,  though  also  timidly,  to  a  time  when 
animosities,  particularly  those  arising  through  dif¬ 
ferences  of  religious  belief,  will  tend  to  diminish 
and  eventually  disappear.  There  can  be  no  substan¬ 
tial  progress  towards  the  ideals  of  peace  unless  we 
envisage  the  possibility  of  such  a  gradual  decline  in 
the  unfriendly  attitude  of  nations  and  of  religious 
sects  towards  one  another.  The  least  that  we  ought 
to  do  is  not  to  create  new  conditions  which  will  in¬ 
tensify  old  animosities  and  promote  new  forms  of 
unfriendliness.  The  program  of  the  political  Zion¬ 
ists,  however,  is  precisely  of  a  character  to  entail 
such  a  possibility.  The  mere  suspicion  that  the  pur¬ 
pose  in  encouraging  Jewish  immigration  into  Pales¬ 
tine  is  to  secure  control  of  the  country  will  arouse 
resentment;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  steps  are  al¬ 
ready  being  taken  by  Mohammedans  and  Chris¬ 
tians  to  prevent  lands  from  falling  into  the  hands 
of  Jews. 


13  8  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

The  Zionistic  program  invites  the  possibility  of  a 
fate  for  Palestine  as  tragic  as  the  misrule  of  the 
Turk.  It  will  be  sad  indeed,  if  a  land  filled  with 
sacred  associations  should  again  become  a  battle¬ 
field  on  which  in  the  past  such  bitter  contests  were 
waged  in  the  name  of  religion.  One  need  not  be  a 
prophet  of  gloom  to  recognize  the  possibility  of  a 
renewed  outbreak  of  religious  animosities  in  a  coun¬ 
try  like  Palestine  of  the  present  day,  where  you 
start  out  with  an  already  existing  intense  mutual 
feeling  of  hostility,  not  to  say  hatred,  among  the 
various  classes  of  the  population,  Mohammedans, 
Christians  and  Jews.  To  the  Western  visitor  who 
goes  to  Palestine  for  the  first  time  it  is  a  painful 
surprise  to  witness  how  little  influence  life  amid 
sacred  associations  exerts  in  promoting  kindness  and 
gentleness  among  those  who  are  privileged  to  spend 
their  days  near  the  sacred  spots.  In  Palestine  the 
individual  is  labeled  according  to  his  faith.  One 
encounters  narrowness,  bigotry,  fanaticism  every¬ 
where.1 

How,  then,  is  it  conceivable  that  the  creation  of  a 
Jewish  State  will  be  able  to  furnish  a  solution  for 

1  See  a  picture  of  these  conditions  in  present-day  Palestine 
by  Joseph  Koven,  in  his  article  “Palestine:  Lights  and 
Shadows”  in  the  April  number  (1919)  of  the  Century  Maga¬ 
zine. 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  139 

any  aspect  of  the  Jewish  Question  ?  It  will  not  solve 
the  problem  for  the  Russian  Jew,  whose  condition 
is  the  worst,  because  it  cannot  accommodate  at  the 
most  more  than  one-tenth  even  of  the  Russian  Jew¬ 
ish  population ; 1  and  this  small  proportion  could 
only  reach  this  haven  of  refuge  after  the  lapse  of  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  What  is  to  become,  mean¬ 
while,  of  the  remaining  more  than  nine-tenths  of  the 
Jews  scattered  throughout  the  Russian  Empire? 

The  tiny  Jewish  State  can  certainly  not  exert  any 
pressure  on  Russia  and  Roumania  with  a  view  of 
improving  the  status  of  the  Jews  in  these  countries. 
By  the  admission  of  the  political  Zionists,  the  Jew¬ 
ish  State  would  only  be  qualified  to  speak  for  that 
small  portion  of  Jewry  which  regards  itself  as  a 
nationality  and  which,  we  have  seen,  is  probably  not 
above  five  per  cent,  outside  of  those  who  live  in 
Russia  and  those  who  view  the  situation  from  the 
Russian-Jewish  standpoint.  We  have  also  seen 
that  the  reorganization  of  a  Jewish  State,  so  far 
from  promoting  the  movement  to  grant  equal  rights 
to  Jews  everywhere,  will  hinder  it  by  leading  many 
Jews,  as  is  actually  the  case,  to  emphasize  that  the 

1  According  to  the  statistics  of  the  American  Jewish  Year- 
Book  for  1918-19,  p.  340,  the  total  number  of  Jews  in  the 
Russian  Empire,  including  what  was  Russian  Poland,  is  6,946,- 


140  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

Jews  in  every  country  should  constitute  a  separate 
nationality.  It  would  hinder  the  movement  for  the 
solution  of  the  Jewish  Question  also  by  tending  to 
keep  alive  mutual  animosities  among  the  three  classes 
of  the  present  inhabitants  of  Palestine;  and  this  ani¬ 
mosity  will  react  on  the  Jews  everywhere.  It  will 
further  hinder  it  by  placing  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  for  one  reason  or  the  other  do  not  wish  to  see 
Jews  admitted  to  full  citizenship  in  such  lands  as 
Russia,  Poland  and  Roumania  a  weapon  that  can  be 
used  against  this  claim.  It  will  create  new  complica¬ 
tions  of  the  Jewish  Question  by  placing  nine-tenths 
—  or  rather,  more  than  nine-tenths,  as  we  may  now 
say, —  of  the  Jews  who  will  permanently  remain  out¬ 
side  of  Palestine  in  a  position  where  they  will  en¬ 
counter  greater  difficulties  in  overcoming  social 
prejudice  and  in  efforts  to  improve  the  status  of 
their  less  fortunate  brethren. 

So  far  from  increasing  the  respect  for  Jews  as 
the  political  Zionists  also  claim,  the  Jewish  State 
will  serve  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  reactionaries 
whose  interest  it  is  to  keep  alive  the  spirit  of  anti- 
Semitism.  Above  all  it  will  serve  to  push  into  the 
background  those  elements-  of  Judaism,  viewed  as  a 
religion,  which  are  universalistic  in  their  implica¬ 
tion  and  in  their  application,  and  instead  will  bring 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  141 

out  in  bold  relief  the  separatistic  features  of  the  reli¬ 
gion  —  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which,  when  strictly 
carried  out,  of  themselves  tend  to  create  a  wall  of 
separation  between  Jews  and  their  fellows.  These 
rites  and  ceremonies  have  their  proper  place,  of 
course,  in  Judaism,  as  in  any  other  religion.  They 
should  call  forth  our  respect  when  observed  by  those 
to  whom  they  are  the  expression  of  a  faith  in  which 
they  sincerely  believe;  but  for  all  that,  they  are  the 
externals  of  the  religion.  Behind  and  beneath  these 
rites  are  the  ideals  for  which  a  religion  stands. 
The  creation  of  a  Jewish  State  will  serve  to  empha¬ 
size,  at  least  for  the  outside  world,  not  the  religious 
ideas,  but  the  religious  practices,  many  of  which  an¬ 
tedate  the  days  of  Judaism  itself  and  were  preserved 
merely  through  the  weight  of  tradition.  Such  em¬ 
phasis  upon  externals  would  be  unfortunate  from 
every  point  of  view ;  it  would  mark  a  step  backward 
in  the  effort  to  realize  the  religious  ideals. 

And  now,  a  final  question.  Why  a  Jewish  State 
in  Palestine,  when  all  that  those  who  have  gone  there 
and  those  who  propose  to  settle  in  that  country  have 
in  mind  can  be  accomplished  just  as  well,  if  not  in¬ 
deed  better,  without  it?  Why  a  Jewish  State  when 
what  is  needed  for  those  who  wish  to  create  for 
themselves  a  future  under  better  auspices  than  is 


142  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

possible  at  present  in  their  surroundings,  is  a  home 
in  which  they  may  feel  secure,  a  land  in  which  they 
will  enjoy  full  rights  of  citizenship,  a  country  which 
will  be  protected  against  aggression  by  the  League 
of  Nations?  Why  a  Jewish  State,  when  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  orthodox  Jews  to  whom  attachment  to 
Palestine  is  more  than  a  sentiment  or  a  doctrine  of 
faith,  will  not  look  with  favor  upon  a  resuscitation 
undertaken  from  a  purely  secular  standpoint  as  a 
national  movement  without  a  religious  background  ? 
Why  a  Jewish  State  which  would  certainly  not  sat¬ 
isfy  those  who  look  to  the  fulfillment  of  divine 
prophecy,  and  which  will  be  a  disillusionment  to 
those  who  believe  that  it  will  form  the  solution  of 
the  Jewish  Question?  Why  a  Jewish  State  which 
will  never  be  representative  of  more  than  a  small 
fraction  of  the  Jews  and  which  will  meet  with  the 
constant  opposition  of  the  large  majority,  who  will 
look  upon  it  with  ill  favor  and  suspicion?  Why  a 
Jewish  State,  when  even  for  cultural  autonomy  all 
that  is  needed  or  desirable  is  fulfilled  by  complete 
local  autonomy  for  the  Jewish  colonies  now  es¬ 
tablished  in  Palestine  and  to  be  established?  Such 
local  autonomy  will  without  much  question  be 
granted  by  the  mandatory  power,  and  cheerfully  so, 
for  Great  Britain  will  encourage  Jewish  coloniza- 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  143 

tion  in  every  possible  way.  It  is  through  such 
colonies,  formed  by  enthusiastic  and  energetic  new¬ 
comers,  ready  to  work  under  a  communal  stimulus, 
that  the  land  can  be  redeemed  from  the  neglect  into 
which  it  has  been  allowed  to  lapse  through  Turkish 
misrule  and  through  the  existence  of  a  government 
which  did  little  or  nothing  for  its  people,  for  the  im¬ 
provement  of  the  land  or  for  education  and  that 
took  no  thought  of  making  the  population  fit  for 
self-government.  All  honor  to  the  zeal  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  colonists  in  Palestine  in  having  already  changed 
the  aspect  of  certain  portions  of  the  country  through 
successful  agriculture  and  viniculture.  Let  us  pay 
due  meed  to  what  has  been  done  by  the  colonists 
themselves  for  the  improvement  of  the  land  by  the 
Zionistic  organizations,  as  well  as  by  high-minded 
philanthropists,  in  promoting  education  by  establish¬ 
ing  trade  and  technical  schools. 

The  Zionists  say  a  “  national  homeland,’’  con¬ 
trolled  by  Jews,  is  needed  in  order  that  as  Jews  they 
may  develop  a  culture  of  their  own  and  make  their 
further  contributions  to  the  world;  that  a  country 
of  their  own  is  needed  and  a  language  of  their  own, 
as  an  essential  condition  of  producing  this  result. 
Now  we  have  seen  that  the  best  contributions  of  the 
Jews  have  been  made  since  their  dispersion  through- 


144  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

out  the  country  under  the  stimulating  contact  with 
others,  and  we  have  also  seen  that  outside  of  the 
religion  which  they  gave  through  the  Prophets  and 
the  literature  which  sprung  from  it,  the  Jews  made 
no  contributions  while  they  had  a  separate  national 
existence.  Why  should  it  be  different  under  an¬ 
other  trial  of  the  experiment,  particularly  when  this 
experiment  will  necessarily  involve  that  only  a  small 
proportion  of  the  Jewish  people  will  participate  in 
it?  We  have  seen  that  the  great  civilizations  of  an¬ 
tiquity,  as  in  modern  times,  have  all  been  produced 
by  the  mixture  of  nationalities  and  not  by  a  single 
nationality,  isolating  itself  from  others  and  proceed¬ 
ing  in  its  own  unimpeded  way.  Culture  is  the 
spark  that  ensues  when  diverse  ethnic  forces  meet. 
One  reason  perhaps,  apart  from  the  geographical 
position  of  Palestine,  why  the  Jews  during  their  na¬ 
tional  existence  did  not  make  any  striking  contribu¬ 
tions  to  civilization  was  just  because  they  were  not 
sufficiently  mixed.  Under  modern  conditions  of 
life  mixture  of  nationalities  is  a  normal  condition  — 
isolation  the  abnormal  that  leads  to  sterility.  It  is 
by  a  constant  crossing  of  currents  and  countercur¬ 
rents  that  modern  progress  and  culture  proceed. 
A  Jewish  State  would  necessarily  emphasize  isola¬ 
tion,  and  if  it  did  not  it  would  cease  to  be  a  Jewish 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  145 

State.  The  fundamental  principle  underlying  the 
plan  for  the  formation  of  a  Jewish  State  is  thus  in 
contradiction  not  only  to  the  testimony  borne  by  the 
past  history  of  the  Jews,  it  runs  not  only  contrary 
to  the  trend  of  Jewish  history  during  the  past  2000 
years,  it  not  only  ignores  the  changes  that  have  come 
over  Palestine  during  this  period,  the  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  country  that  it  has  become,  but  it  is  also  con¬ 
trary  to  the  general  trend  and  spirit  of  the  age.  But 
granted  that  the  Jews  of  Palestine  should  be  placed 
in  a  position  to  make  their  independent  and  cul¬ 
tural  contribution,  granted  even  that  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  it  is  necessary  to  resuscitate  the  old  Hebrew 
language  in  order  to  make  it  the  medium  of  their 
thoughts  and  aspirations  —  though  this  movement 
has  an  artificial  aspect  which  does  not  particularly 
commend  it  —  even  for  this  purpose  a  Jewish  State 
is  not  needed.  All  that  is  required  is  a  congenial 
environment  with  freedom  of  movement ;  and  these 
two  conditions  are  fulfilled  by  giving  the  colonies 
complete  independence  in  the  management  of  their 
local  affairs.  For  cultural  autonomy  no  State  is  re¬ 
quired. 

Why,  then,  all  this  agitation  for  the  satisfaction 
of  a  sentiment  which,  though  impressive  from  the 
romantic  aspect,  is  fraught  with  such  great  dangers 


146  Zionism  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

when  the  attempt  is  made  to  convert  it  into  a  re¬ 
ality —  danger  to  the  Jews  of  Palestine  in  adding 
a  further  discordant  element  to  the  many  that  al¬ 
ready  exist  there,  instead  of  improving  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  the  various  elements  of  the  population  to 
one  another,  as  well  as  danger  to  Jews  outside  of 
Palestine  who  will  be  placed  in  a  wrong  position 
before  the  world  through  the  misinterpretation  of 
the  trend  of  Jewish  history;  danger  also  to  the 
principle  of  democracy  through  the  creation  of  a 
State  based  on  the  undemocratic  principle  of  a  sin¬ 
gle  nationality  in  a  country  which  is  marked  by  the 
presence  of  many  nationalities.  For  be  it  empha¬ 
sized  once  more,  that  since  a  country  belongs  to  all 
who  live  in  it,  irrespective  of  ethnic  descent  and 
without  reference  to  racial  affiliation,  the  creation 
of  a  Jewish  State  necessarily  impresses  one  as  a  re¬ 
actionary  project,  and  this  despite  the  fact  that 
those  who  advocate  it  are  undoubtedly  high-minded, 
sincerely  enthusiastic,  but  unfortunately  blinded  by 
a  romantic  sentiment,  wrongly  interpreted.  Pal¬ 
estine  of  all  countries,  by  virtue  of  its  fortunes 
which  have  made  it  a  sacred  land  for  the  followers 
of  three  great  religions,  should  become  under  the 
aegis  of  the  new  era  which  is  opening  for  the  entire 
East,  a  state  organized  on  an  intra-national  basis. 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  147 

The  Palestinian  question  forms  part  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  plan  for  the  resuscitation  and  reorganization 
of  countries  in  the  Near  East.1  It  needs  to  be  set¬ 
tled  by  the  application  of  those  general  principles 
of  political  freedom  and  political  guidance  for  long- 
neglected  peoples,  which  will  enable  them  to  become 
fit  again  for  self-government  and  build  up  a  new 
East  that  may  join  with  the  West  in  contributing 
to  the  future  progress  of  humanity. 

What  higher  destiny  can  there  be  for  Palestine 
than  to  become  a  center,  symbolizing  by  the  po¬ 
litical  union  of  the  many  nationalities  that  have 
found  their  home  there,  the  coming  together  of  peo¬ 
ples  which  is  the  very  keynote  of  the  international 
conference  that  has  ensued  upon  the  termination  of 
the  great  war?  The  world,  storm-tossed  by  the  dis¬ 
asters  of  the  last  four  years,  longs  for  peace. 
Where  is  that  peace  to  come  from  if  we  throw  new 
apples  of  contention  into  the  ring?  What  better 
beginning  can  be  made  toward  bringing  about  en¬ 
during  peace  among  nations  than  by  furnishing  an 
example  of  a  practical  “  League  of  Nations  ’ 
through  the  setting  aside  of  one  place  in  the  world 
in  which  all  the  nations  of  Europe  and  America  and 

1  See  Jastrow,  The  War  and  the  Bagdad  Railway ,  pp.  I43~ 
152. 


1 48  Zionism,  and  the  Future  of  Palestine 

many  parts  of  Asia  and  Africa  already  have  a 
share.  What  a  happy  destiny  it  would  be  for  Pal¬ 
estine  to  be  reorganized  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
present  a  prospect  at  least  of  that  peace  of  which 
one  of  the  ancient  Prophets  gave  us  so  impressive 
a  description,  a  country  “  in  which  swords  shall  be 
beaten  into  plow-shares  and  spears  into  pruning 
hooks/1  and  where  nation  shall  not  lift  sword 
against  nation,  where  there  will  be  no  need  for 
drilling  men  for  war,  and  in  which  everyone  shall 
sit  under  his  vine  and  his  figtree  and  “  there  will  be 
none  to  make  him  afraid.”  A  dream  perhaps,  the 
realization  of  which,  even  though  limited  to  one  spot 
in  the  world,  it  may  be  idle  to  look  forward  to  — 
perhaps !  It  must  be  confessed  that  we  are  still  far 
from  the  realization  of  that  dream,  and  yet  the 
world  needs  the  vision  to  cheer  it  on  in  its  course,  to 
comfort  it  for  its  sufferings  and  to  retain  the  hope 
for  the  future. 

It  would  be  nothing  short  of  sacrilegious  to  miss 
the  present  opportunity  to  reorganize  Palestine  on 
the  broadest  possible  basis,  the  basis  suggested  by 
its  eventful  history  and  by  its  present  position  as  a 
genuine  gathering-place  of  nations  because  of  the 
sacred  associations  with  which  that  land  is  filled. 

I  plead  for  a  Palestine  reorganized  as  this  country 


Political  Zionism  and  the  Jewish  Question  149 

is,  as  are  England,  France,  Italy  and  other  European 
lands  —  on  the  broad  platform  of  democracy.  I 
plead  for  a  Palestinian  State  in  which  all  who  are 
there  and  all  who  go  there  will  share  alike  in  helping 
it  to  fulfill  what  would  appear  to  be  its  manifest 
destiny,  an  example  that  peoples  gathered  from  all 
quarters  of  the  globe  are  able  to  live  together  in 
amity  and  join  in  forming  a  new  national  unit  —  a 
Palestinian  State.  I  should  like  to  envisage  a  Pales¬ 
tine  that  may  become  a  beacon-light  for  the  world, 
that  may  again  become  a  spiritual  focus,  furnishing 
further  inspiration  for  mankind  as  it  proceeds  in 
its  march  through  the  ages  to  a  still  higher,  albeit  un¬ 
known  and  unknowable,  goal.  Such  a  Palestine  is 
worth  striving  for,  and  I  should  like  to  see  the  Jews, 
—  the  Zionists,  if  you  please, —  take  an  honorable 
share  in  bringing  about  a  Palestine  that  may  look 
forward  to  such  a  future.  Such  a  Palestine,  how¬ 
ever,  cannot  be  built  up  through  the  creation  of  a 
Jewish  State.  A  Jewish  State  would  simply  mean  a 
glorified  ghetto,  narrow  in  its  outlook,  undemocratic 
in  its  organization,  and  that  may  well  turn  out  to  be 
reactionary  in  its  tendencies. 


APPENDIX 


A  STATEMENT  TO  THE  PEACE 
CONFERENCE  1 

As  a  future  form  of  government  for  Palestine  will 
undoubtedly  be  considered  by  the  approaching  Peace 
Conference,  we,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  unite  in  this  statement,  setting  forth  our  objec¬ 
tions  to  the  organization  of  a  Jewish  State  in  Pales¬ 
tine  as  proposed  by  the  Zionist  Societies  in  this  coun¬ 
try  and  Europe  and  to  the  segregation  of  the  Jews  as 
a  nationalistic  unit  in  any  country. 

We  feel  that  in  so  doing  we  are  voicing  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  American  Jews  born  in  this  coun¬ 
try  and  of  those  foreign  born  who  have  lived  here 
long  enough  to  thoroughly  assimilate  American  politi¬ 
cal  and  social  conditions.  The  American  Zionists 
represent,  according  to  the  most  recent  statistics  avail¬ 
able,  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  Jews  living  in  this 
country,  about  150,000  out  of  3,500,000.  ( American 
Jewish  Year  Book  1918,  Philadelphia.) 

1  Handed  to  President  Wilson  on  behalf  of  the  signers  by 
Congressman  Julius  Kahn  on  March  4th,  1919,  for  transmis¬ 
sion  to  the  Peace  Conference  at  Paris.  See  above,  p.  117,  note 
1.  The  statement  was  prepared  conjointly  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Henry  Berkowitz,  of  Philadelphia,  Mr.  Max  Senior,  of  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  and  Professor  Morris  Jastrow,  Jr.,  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania. 

151 


152  Appendix 

At  the  outset  we  wish  to  indicate  our  entire  sympa¬ 
thy  with  the  efforts  of  Zionists  which  aim  to  secure 
for  Jews  at  present  living  in  lands  of  oppression  a 
refuge  in  Palestine  or  elsewhere,  where  they  may 
freely  develop  their  capabilities  and  carry  on  their 
activities  as  fi^e^citizens. 

But  we  raise  our  voices  in  warning  and  protest 
against  the  demand  of  the  Zionists  for  the  reorganiza¬ 
tion  of  the  Jews  as  a  national  unit,  to  whom,  now  or 
in  the  future,  territorial  sovereignty  in  Palestine  shall 
be  committed.  This  demand  not  only  misinterprets 
the  trend  of  the  history  of  the  Jews,  who  ceased  to  be 
a  nation  2000  years  ago,  but  involves  the  limitation 
and  possible  annulment  of  the  larger  claims  of  Jews 
for  full  citizenship  and  human  rights  in  all  lands  in 
which  those  rights  are  not  yet  secure.  For  the  very 
reason  that  the  new  era  upon  which  the  world  is  en¬ 
tering  aims  to  establish  government  everywhere  on 
principles  of  true  democracy,  we  reject  the  Zionistic 
project  of  a  “national  home  for  the  Jewish  people  in 
Palestine.” 

Zionism  arose  as  a  result  of  the  intolerable  condi¬ 
tions  under  which  Jews  have  been  forced  to  live  in 
Russia  and  Roumania.  But  it  is  evident  that  for  the 
Jewish  population  of  these  countries,  variously  esti¬ 
mated  at  from  six  to  ten  millions,  Palestine  can  be¬ 
come  no  homeland.  Even  with  the  improvement  of 
the  neglected  condition  of  this  country,  its  limited  area 
can  offer  no  solution.  The  Jewish  question  in  Russia 
and  Roumania  can  be  settled  only  within  those  coun- 


Appendix  153 

tries  by  the  grant  of  full  rights  of  citizenship  to  Jews. 

We  are  all  the  more  opposed  to  the  Zionists,  be¬ 
cause  they,  themselves,  distinctly  repudiate  the  solely 
ameliorative  program.  They  demand  and  hail  with 
delight  the  “  Balfour  Declaration  ”  to  establish  “  a 
national  home  for  the  Jewish  people  in  Palestine,”  i.  e., 
a  home  not  merely  for  Jews  living  in  countries  in 
which  they  are  oppressed,  but  for  Jews  universally. 
No  Jew,  wherever  he  may  live,  can  consider  himself 
free  from  the  implications  of  such  a  grant. 

The  willingness  of  Jews  interested  in  the  welfare  of 
their  brethren  to  aid  in  redeeming  Palestine  from  the 
blight  of  centuries  of  Turkish  misrule,  is  no  acceptance 
of  the  Zionist  project  to  segregate  Jews  as  a  political 
unit  and  to  re-institute  a  section  of  such  a  political 
unit  in  Palestine  or  elsewhere. 

At  the  present  juncture  in  the  world’s  affairs  when 
lands  that  have  hitherto  been  subjected  to  foreign 
domination  are  to  be  recognized  as  free  and  indepen¬ 
dent  states,  we  rejoice  in  the  avowed  proposal  of  the 
Peace  Congress  to  put  into  practical  application  the 
fundamental  principles  of  democracy.  That  princi¬ 
ple,  which  asserts  equal  rights  for  all  citizens  of  a 
state,  irrespective  of  creed  or  ethnic  descent,  should 
be  applied  in  such  a  manner  as  to  exclude  segrega¬ 
tion  of  any  kind,  be  it  nationalistic  or  other.  Such 
segregation  must  inevitably  create  differences  among 
the  sections  of  the  population  of  a  country.  Any  such 
plan  of  segregation  is  necessarily  reactionary  in  its 
tendency,  undemocratic  in  spirit  and  totally  contrary 


154  Appendix 

to  the  practices  of  free  government,  especially  as 
these  are  exemplified  by  our  own  country.  We 
therefore  strongly  urge  the  abandonment  of  such  a 
basis  for  the  reorganization  of  any  state. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  SEGREGATION  OF  JEWS  AS  A  POLITICAL 

UNIT 

Against  such  a  political  segregation  of  the  Jews  in 
Palestine  or  elsewhere  we  object: 

i.  Because  the  Jews  are  dedicated  heart  and  soul  to 
the  welfare  of  the  countries  in  which  they  dwell  under 
free  conditions.  All  Jews  repudiate  every  suspicion 
of  a  double  allegiance,  but  to  our  minds  it  is  neces¬ 
sarily  implied  in  and  cannot  by  any  logic  be  elimi¬ 
nated  from  the  establishment  of  a  sovereign  State 
for  the  Jews  in  Palestine. 

By  the  large  part  taken  by  them  in  the  great  war, 
the  Jews  have  once  and  for  all  shattered  the  base 
aspersions  of  the  Anti-Semites  which  charged  them 
with  being  aliens  in  every  land,  incapable  of  true 
patriotism  and  prompted  only  by  sinister  and  self- 
seeking  motives.  Moreover,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that 
the  overwhelming  bulk  of  the  Jews  of  America,  Eng¬ 
land,  France,  Italy,  Holland,  Switzerland  and  the 
other  lands  of  freedom,  have  no  thought  whatever  of 
surrendering  their  citizenship  in  these  lands  in  order 
to  resort  to  a  “  Jewish  homeland  in  Palestine.”  As  a 
rule  those  who  favor  such  a  restoration  advocate  it 
not  for  themselves  but  for  others.  Those  who  act 
thus,  and  yet  insist  on  their  patriotic  attachment  to 


Appendix  1 55 

the  countries  of  which  they  are  citizens,  are  self-de¬ 
ceived  in  their  profession  of  Zionism  and  under  the 
spell  of  an  emotional  romanticism  or  of  a  religious 
sentiment  fostered  through  centuries  of  gloom. 

2.  We  also  object  to  political  segregation  of  Jews 
for  those  who  take  their  Zionistic  professions  seri¬ 
ously  as  referring  not  to  “  others  ”  but  to  themselves. 
Granted  that  the  establishment  of  a  sovereign  Jewish 
State  in  Palestine  would  lead  many  to  emigrate  to 
that  land,  the  political  conditions  of  the  millions  who 
would  be  unable  to  migrate  for  generations  to  come, 
if  ever,  would  be  made  far  more  precarious.  Rou- 
mania  —  despite  the  pledges  of  the  Berlin  Treaty  — 
has  legally  branded  her  Jews  as  aliens,  though  many 
are  descended  from  families  settled  in  that  country 
longer  than  the  present  Roumanian  government  has 
existed.  The  establishment  of  a  Jewish  State  will 
manifestly  serve  the  malevolent  rulers  of  that  and 
other  lands  as  a  new  justification  for  additional  re¬ 
pressive  legislation.  The  multitudes  who  remain 
would  be  subject  to  worse  perils,  if  possible,  even 
though  the  few  who  escape  might  prosper  in  Palestine. 

3.  We  object  to  the  political  segregation  also  of 
those  who  might  succeed  in  establishing  themselves  in 
Palestine.  The  proposition  involves  dangers  which, 
it  is  manifest,  have  not  had  the  serious  consideration 
of  those  who  are  so  zealous  in  its  advocacy.  These 
dangers  are  adverted  to  in  a  most  kindly  spirit  of 
warning  by  Sir  George  Adam  Smith,  who  is  gen¬ 
erally  acknowledged  to  be  the  greatest  authority  in  the 


1 56  Appendix 

world  on  everything  connected  with  Palestine,  either 
past  or  present.  In  a  recent  publication,  Syria  and  the 
Holy  Land,  he  points  out  that  there  is  absolutely  no 
fixity  to  the  boundaries  of  Palestine.  These  have 
varied  greatly  in  the  course  of  the  centuries.  The 
claims  to  various  sections  of  this  undefined  territory 
would  unquestionably  evoke  bitter  controversies. 
“  It  is  not  true,”  says  Sir  George,  “  that  Palestine  is 
the  national  home  of  the  Jewish  people  and  of  no  other 
people.”  “  It  is  not  correct  to  call  its  non-Jewish  in¬ 
habitants  *  Arabs/  or  to  say  that  they  have  left  no 
image  of  their  spirit  and  made  no  history  except  in 
the  great  Mosque.”  “  Nor  can  we  evade,  the  fact 
that  Christian  communities  have  been  as  long  in  pos¬ 
session  of  their  portion  of  this  land  as  ever  the  Jews 
were.”  “  These  are  legitimate  questions,”  he  says, 
“  stirred  up  by  the  claims  of  Zionism,  but  the  Zion¬ 
ists  have  not  yet  fully  faced  them.” 

To  subject  the  Jews  to  the  possible  recurrence  of 
such  bitter  and  sanguinary  conflicts  which  would  be 
inevitable,  would  be  a  crime  against  the  triumphs  of 
their  whole  past  history  and  against  the  lofty  and 
world-embracing  visions  of  their  great  prophets  and 
leaders. 

4.  Though  these  grave  difficulties  be  met,  still  we 
protest  against  the  political  segregation  of  the  Jews 
and  the  re-establishment  in  Palestine  of  a  distinctively 
Jewish  State  as  utterly  opposed  to  the  principles  of 
democracy  which  it  is  the  avowed  purpose  of  the 
World’s  Peace  Conference  to  establish. 


Appendix 


157 


Whether  the  Jews  be  regarded  as  a  “  race  ”  or  as  a 
“  religion,”  it  is  contrary  to  the  democratic  principles 
for  which  the  world  war  was  waged  to  found  a  nation 
on  either  or  both  of  these  bases.  America,  England, 
France,  Italy,  Switzerland  and  all  the  most  advanced 
nations  of  the  world  are  composed  of  representatives 
of  many  races  and  religions.  Their  glory  lies  in  the 
freedom  of  conscience  and  worship,  in  the  liberty  of 
thought  and  custom  which  binds  the  followers  of 
many  faiths  and  varied  civilizations  in  the  common 
bonds  of  political  union.  A  Jewish  State  involves 
fundamental  limitations  as  to  race  and  religion,  else 
the  term  “  Jewish  ”  means  nothing.  To  unite  Church 
and  State,  in  any  form,  as  under  the  old  Jewish  hier¬ 
archy,  would  be  a  leap  backward  of  two  thousand 
years. 

“  The  rights  of  other  creeds  and  races  will  be  re¬ 
spected  under  Jewish  dominance,”  is  the  assurance  of 
Zionism.  But  the  keynotes  of  democracy  are  neither 
condescension  nor  tolerance,  but  justice  and  equality. 
All  this  applies  with  special  force  to  a  country  like 
Palestine.  That  land  is  filled  with  associations  sacred 
to  the  followers  of  three  great  religions,  and  as  a  result 
of  migrating  movements  of  many  centuries  contains  an 
extraordinary  number  of  different  ethnic  groups,  far 
out  of  proportion  to  the  small  extent  of  the  country 
itself.  Such  a  condition  points  clearly  to  a  reorgani¬ 
zation  of  Palestine  on  the  broadest  possible  basis. 

5.  We  object  to  the  political  segregation  of  the 
Jews  because  it  is  an  error  to  assume  that  the  bond 


158  Appendix 

uniting  them  is  of  a  national  character.  They  are 
bound  by  two  factors:  First,  the  bond  of  common 
religious  beliefs  and  aspirations  and,  secondly,  the 
bond  of  common  traditions,  customs,  and  experiences, 
largely,  alas,  of  common  trials  and  sufferings.  Noth¬ 
ing  in  their  present  status  suggests  that  they  form  in 
any  real  sense  a  separate  nationalistic  unit. 

The  reorganization  of  Palestine  as  far  as  it  affects 
the  Jews  is  but  part  of  a  far  larger  issue,  namely,  the 
constructive  endeavor  to  secure  the  emancipation  of 
the  Jews  in  all  the  lands  in  which  they  dwell.  This 
movement,  inaugurated  in  the  eighteenth  century  and 
advancing  with  steady  progress  through  the  western 
lands,  was  checked  by  such  reactionary  tendencies  as 
caused  the  expulsion  of  the  Poles  from  Eastern  Prus¬ 
sia  and  the  massacre  of  Armenians  in  Turkey.  As 
directed  against  Jews  these  tendencies  crystallized  into 
a  political  movement  called  Anti-Semitism,  which  had 
its  rise  in  Germany.  Its  virulence  spread  (especially) 
throughout  eastern  Europe  and  led  to  cruel  outbreaks 
in  Roumania  and  elsewhere,  and  to  the  pogroms  of 
Russia  with  their  dire  consequences. 

To  guard  against  such  evils  in  the  future  we  urge 
that  the  great  constructive  movement,  so  sadly  inter¬ 
rupted,  be  reinstituted  and  that  efficient  measures  be 
taken  to  insure  the  protection  of  the  law  and  the  full 
rights  of  citizenship  to  Jews  in  every  land.  If  the 
basis  of  the  reorganization  of  governments  is  hence¬ 
forth  to  be  democratic,  it  cannot  be  contemplated  to 


Appendix  159 

exclude  any  group  of  people  from  the  enjoyment  of 
full  rights. 

As  to  the  future  of  Palestine,  it  is  our  fervent  hope 
that  what  was  once  a  “  promised  land  ”  for  the  Jews 
may  become  a  “  land  of  promise  ”  for  all  races  and 
creeds,  safeguarded  by  the  League  of  Nations  which, 
it  is  expected,  will  be  one  of  the  fruits  of  the  Peace 
Conference  to  whose  deliberations  the  world  now 
looks  forward  so  anxiously  and  so  full  of  hope.  We 
ask  that  Palestine  be  constituted  as  a  free  and  inde¬ 
pendent  state,  to  be  governed  under  a  democratic 
form  of  government  recognizing  no  distinctions  of 
creed  or  race  or  ethnic  descent,  and  with  adequate 
power  to  protect  the  country  against  oppression  of 
any  kind.  We  do  not  wish  to  see  Palestine,  either 
now  or  at  any  time  in  the  future,  organized  as  a 
Jewish  State. 


THE  END 


PRINTED  IN  THE  VNITED  STATES  OP  AMERICA 


. 

' 


. 


■ 


. 


. 

* 


i 


f 


\ 


’ 


«• 


. 


. 


Date  Due 

i  ~  i  i  i  in  Mitii  in  lit  b  writ 

- 

- - 

- ~ — * - 

- 

<f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

